Baroness Coussins—Jean Elizabeth Coussins, having been created Baroness Coussins, of Whitehall Park in the London Borough of Islington, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve and the Lord Condon.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton—Dame Jane Susan Campbell, DBE, having been created Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, of Surbiton in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Ashley of Stoke and the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, first, modern houses use a lot less water than traditional houses do; they are designed a lot better. Secondly, the plans, particularly in the Thames Gateway, are such that it is highly likely that an increased number of dwellings there can be built using the same amount of water in total as was used in the past, because they are more efficient in their use of water. I say to the noble Baroness that there is no indiscriminate house building in this country.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the consultation has just concluded. The departmentwill consider the results and will bring forward recommendations in due course. I understand the concerns that have been expressed and can assure the noble Earl that they will be fully taken into account. I say to him that the price mechanism for pharmacy contractors and dispensing contractors is not transparent. There are variations between different classes of contractor, which is the reason for this review. It would be sensible to await the outcome of the review, while taking into account some of the concerns that have been expressed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I can confirm that part of the service provided by some appliance contractors is specialist nurse visits. I agree with her about their importance. At the moment, there is no specific price for the home visits. The proposals being put forward would set a price for those visits, which could be undertaken either, as now, by the appliance contractors or, in future, by the pharmacy contactors. We have to distinguish between our aim to ensure that services to the public are appropriate and competitive issues between the various players in the market, which is a very different issue.

Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, will he reconcile a statement made by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Patricia Hewitt, in an interview this month with the editor of the British Journal of Healthcare Management with regard to the transfer of multi-professional education and training budgets to meet the deficits last year? She said,
	"now this is fixed I would not expect the NHS to have to take similar action",
	this year. However, four strategic health authorities have already stated their intent to reserve between3.7 and 11.8 per cent of their budgets for NHS reserves. How will the strategic health authorities be monitored? How will corrective action be taken to ensure that the right level of places are reserved for students, and that deficits from last year are made good in the light of the right amount of students qualifying in 2010-11?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, last year was exceptional. The NHS faced a deficit. We required the NHS to turn the situation around. It did that. We expect the final outcome for 2006-07 will be that the health service is not in deficit. That has led to hard decisions having to be made, including on education and training. I assure the noble Baroness that education and training remains a priority. The Government have seen a huge increase in the number of training places. Through the service level agreement, we will ensure that strategic health authorities acknowledge their part in ensuring that a national strategy for workforce planning is furthered and encouraged. But the SHAs have to make their own decisions, balancing workforce needs and the needs of training places, and we will certainly ensure that that happens.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, given that1.9 million Iraqis have been displaced within Iraq,1.2 million Iraqis have been displaced in Syria and three-quarters of a million have been displaced in Jordan, does my noble friend think that £10 million will go very far? Could we not divert money from elsewhere within British public expenditure to support more of those living in these very difficult conditions?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about the particular vulnerability of those who have worked as interpreters and drivers for British forces did seem rather weak? People who have risked their lives by working with British forces do represent a real obligation for this country, given that we bear responsibility for getting them into these particular difficulties in Iraq? Can the Government not set a higher priority on looking after those who have risked their lives to assist British troops in Iraq?

Baroness Noakes: Whom does the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, envisage would appoint the chairman of the Joint Committee or commission?

Lord Newby: I am sure that the whole Committee would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to enhance public trust in the statistics that the Government produce, and that Parliament must have a strengthened role in achieving that. We strongly support the concept of enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of the statistical service. The model that we always had in mind was a Joint Committee of both Houses, which would act in the traditional manner of parliamentary scrutiny. It might, as part of that process, undertake a series of confirmation hearings for members of the board and possibly for the incoming National Statistician, so that there is proper scrutiny both of the persons and of the procedures of the new bodies.
	We have some doubts about whether there should be a statutory commission as set out in the amendments, partly because of the possible conflicts of interest mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, which is a real issue. There is the risk of slightly muddying the waters, which are pretty muddy already, between the roles of the board and of the National Statistician. If you have this very powerful new statutory commission in place, there is a real danger of the roles being muddied further.
	The other thing that I have slight doubts about is the idea that Parliament, almost uniquely, should set the budget for the statistical service. We agree that statistics are very important in how the Government are perceived and for trust in government. Is the statistical service such a unique strand of government activity that Parliament should have that role? Is it of a different order of importance from, for example, the Government Economic Service, which also has a specialist role in the overall Civil Service organisation? We are not convinced that statistics are much different from many other public sector functions.
	However, I congratulate the noble Baroness on one aspect of the amendment, about which I have a question for the Minister. Whenever we discuss the possibility of establishing a parliamentary body to oversee and to scrutinise new legislation, we are told that we cannot discuss the matter, because it is for Parliament to decide, rather than one House of Parliament in the context of deliberation on a Bill. Yet here we have an amendment that would set up,in effect, a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Why is it possible to set up a commission that includes six Members of the House of Commons and six Members the House of Lords, when, if I tabled an amendment to establish a Joint Committee with six Members from each House, I might be ruled out of order or, at least, the Minister would say that that was totally against parliamentary procedure? I would be grateful if the Minister could help me on that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This has been a fascinating debate. It began with a proposal from the Opposition of an alternate model for the system, and it is for them to defend their model. So when the noble Lord, Lord Newby, asks me where Parliament fits into this model and whether it would be in order to table amendments on how to instruct Parliament, that question should be addressed not to me but to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who proposed the amendment. I say only that in legislation we should be somewhat wary of purporting to tell Parliament how it should carry out its scrutiny functions, and I am mindful that significant contributions on this issue in the other place identified support for the government model and not for the one proposed in this group of amendments.
	These amendments were considered in the other place but, before I address them head on, I should perhaps explain the Government's model proposed in the Bill and say why we think that it is the right one and why the amendments and proposed new clauses would confuse the situation. However, several Members of the Committee, including my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Desai, and the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, to whom I shall refer in a moment when we get on to the subject of financing the proposal, have already indicated why the alternate model proposed in the amendments has, to put it at its mildest, some imperfections.
	The amendments propose an alternative model and suggest how things should be done, but we in government base our position on the concept that statistical production is an executive function and that statistics are a public good serving a wide range of users. It is therefore proper that that function should be located within government rather than within Parliament. At the same time, I accept the strong argument that there has to be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of statistics in order to enhance the nation's trust in them.
	The view that the production of statistics should be an executive function was supported in our public consultation, and the Treasury Select Committee, which has had responsibility for statistics in the past, largely endorsed the Government's position. It isan almost universal feature of statistical systems internationally that statistical production sits in the Executive, not the legislature. The noble Baroness may be able to produce illustrations of where her model obtains elsewhere, but I did not notice her refer to them in her speech, nor in any other that we have heard in the past. So the model being articulated on the other side of the House certainly has some unique and, we believe, flawed features.
	One central pillar of the Government's model is the production of statistics as a responsibility of government. The next core aspect of our model is scrutiny of the statistical system by an independent board, with statutory powers established in legislation, as this Bill sets out. Parliament's role in this model is, of course, important and is to hold the statistical system and all those involved in and responsible for it to account. Parliament rightly has that role in relation to other executive functions of government which are devolved or overseen by independent boards, such as the Food Standards Agency.
	Therefore, the idea of a commission for official statistics established in statute, composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament and with a role in appointments, would surely confuse Parliament's role and the governance model overall, which is the burden of the representation of my noble friend Lord Desai. Although there are a limited number of other areas where there are commissions of the type proposed—for example, the Public Accounts Commission, which scrutinises the work of the National Audit Office, and the Speaker's Committee, which oversees the work of the Electoral Commission—they relate to the scrutiny of fundamentally different organisations and issues. Those two bodies relate to the role of the legislature, and that factor is not relevant here.
	The Public Accounts Commission's primary role is to examine the National Audit Office estimates and it is established in a manner akin to the proposed commission for official statistics. The role of the National Audit Office is quite different from that of the statistical system. The National Audit Office has a particular role in ensuring that government departments have achieved value for the money voted to them by Parliament—hence the particular method of scrutiny.
	Equally, the Speaker's Committee, which scrutinises the expenditure and income of the Electoral Commission, is so established because of the special role that the Electoral Commission plays in relation to the legislature. The Electoral Commission is there to establish the integrity and effectiveness of elections to this Parliament as a whole, not just to the Executive. Therefore, those two models are different and have different scrutinising structures in Parliament because of their uniqueness in those terms. I maintain that statistics do not fit within that pattern.
	The amendments stipulate that the Queen, in appointing the chair of the board and the National Statistician, is advised by the chair of the Commission for Official Statistics. Notwithstanding what I have already said about the reasons why I do not think we should establish a commission for official statistics, as my honourable friend the Financial Secretary set out in the other place, the Government intend to follow the usual process in these matters. That means that, in the case of Crown appointments, the Queen is advised by the Privy Council, via the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor. In this case, it will be the Prime Minister.
	That is a well established process, which it is unnecessary to stipulate in the legislation because we are accustomed, in a range of bodies, to following exactly that pattern. There is no such reference, for example, in relation to Crown appointments in the Bank of England Act. Of course, we need to guarantee that the selection process as regards the board is open and fair and conducted in line with the high standards that will be expected of the office.
	That aside, we do not think that the chair of such a commission should be the one to advise the Queen on such matters. The Government do not believe it is for Parliament to take a direct role in what we regard as an executive appointment. In fact, it seems to me that the noble Baroness in proposing her amendmenthas to recognise that it is certainly an executive appointment. The other amendments follow a similar vein, and would transfer the responsibilities for appointing non-executive members of the board, currently assigned in legislation to the Treasury, to the chair of the commission for official statistics. This is inconsistent with the fact that the board serves a function of the Executive. Parliament should not interpose on executive appointments.
	The Treasury Select Committee of the other place said last year that public perceptions about the independence of the board would depend more upon the actions of board members than the method of appointment. I am sure that we all recognise that that must be so. The Government certainly agree, and think that the direct involvement of Parliament in the appointments process would skew the accountability model for no gain. The quality of the board's membership will of course be crucial in ensuring the board's independence, credibility and ability, if necessary, to challenge government departments on the quality and integrity of their statistics. Parliament's role will then be to hold such persons to account, as well as the Government for their appointments in such cases.
	On funding, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, who indicated that there were difficulties in the model of the noble Baroness's amendments. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Desai, who confirmed what must be the case. It is suggested that the five-year period created in the Bill for the funding and budgetary arrangements for the commission will not necessarily guarantee independence. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, expressed his anxiety about that. I thought, as my noble friend Lord Desai indicated, that British universities worked on exactly that model for several decades. They did so, justifiably to trumpet across the world that they had state funding but were independent of the state. They gloried in that role and stressed that it was essential that such independence should be maintained. A model not dissimilar to that is being proposed for this board, and it is suggested that the board will be under the Treasury's thumb. I do not believe that to be so. It is not our intention, which is why have put forward this structure. It obtains for one or two other significant bodies such as the Food Standards Agency or the regulating agencies, which must have their independence from government in dealing with aspects of the utilities. All have guaranteed funding over a period to ensure their independence.

Baroness Noakes: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am sorry that my model did not gain more support around the House but it has enabled us to have a debate about important issues.
	The noble Lords, Lord Turnbull and Lord Newby, raised the question of whether there would be a conflict of interest between Parliament's holding the Statistics Board to account and also setting its financial envelope and making appointments. I am not sure that that is a huge problem—and it is not a problem with the NAO, which has worked perfectly well—but I accept that some distinctions could be made between the NAO and an organisation such as the Statistics Board.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, suggested that this new commission would take up a lot of time. That was not the intent. The intent was that it would deal with appointments and money, which could be done annually or perhaps even five-yearly, and that it would deal with the basic oversight of the Statistics Board, but that it would not be at it every day of the week, which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, seemed to imply, because it would not be carrying out executive functions. We were not suggesting that the Statistics Board would sit within the legislature, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, merely that certain powers would sit within the legislature.
	We had an interesting debate on money, which teased out the fact that that is one of the important areas. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has helped us to see that this Bill is probably deficient in the way in which it approaches money, because it leaves the issue of money entirely to the Treasury. It does not even enshrine a five-year settlement, which might beone way forward that we may well want to explore later.
	This debate has also been useful in improving and strengthening the coalition of support around my noble friend Lord Jenkin's views for a joint committee. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, indicated that we could never write in Joint Committees, but I am told that we can write in joint commissions, and we may well have a go at writing in a joint scrutiny commission at a later stage.
	I believe that my amendment has enabled us to have a useful debate on some of the issues that we needed to address, but I beg leave to withdraw it.

Baroness Noakes: I have tabled our opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill in order to debate whether a non-ministerial department is the best way to achieve an independent organisation for statistics. This aspect of the Government's proposals has received relatively little attention.
	The Government have relied on the existence of20 or so other non-ministerial departments as a precedent. The use of that model goes back a long way and it is a well tested method of creating some independence within government. However, we should be under no illusions that those organisations remain firmly within government. Indeed, one of the reasons for using the model is to allow fluidity of staffing between the non-ministerial department and the rest of Whitehall, which can certainly have advantages.
	The name "non-ministerial department" is a bit of a misnomer because it implies that Ministers disappear from the picture. Clearly, they do not: Ministers remain responsible for the Government's legislation; they appoint the key people; they retain mechanisms that control the terms and numbers of staff; and generally they set the amount of money that is needed. Under this Bill, they retain powers of direction so that they can step in. We shall come to those powers later.
	The issue I want to draw to the attention of the Committee is that this is the first time the Government have sought to use a non-ministerial department model to encompass an organisation with split functions of oversight and operations, as set out in the Bill which has an assessment function separate from the National Statistician's functions—in effect, to oversee the latter. The board is responsible both for the production of statistics and regulating them by regulating the work of the National Statistician and the executive office, and I do not believe that any of the other non-ministerial departments has that overlap of functions. We will be looking at the overlap of functions in more detail in later amendments, but for the purposes of this Motion I am trying to explore whether this model has previously been used for the overlapping arrangement.
	Other options were examined by the Government, as set out in their various documents before they produced the legislation on the Statistics Board, but none appeared to examine the use of a public corporation to carry out the function as set out in the Bill. Public corporations generally have a greater distance from government. They still have government involvement in appointments and so forth, but they have a greater degree of separation and therefore independence. I am much less clear that a non-ministerial department has sufficient independence. I have worked with some of the other non-ministerial departments—indeed, I sat on the board of two of them. I would characterise them as close to the departments which have responsibilities for them and say that they are certainly not arm's-length. I have also worked with, or been appointed to, public corporations. In those instances, the length of the arm is very much longer. I believe that the element of distance in government is crucial to creating proper independence.
	On non-ministerial departments, I hope that the Minister can answer one question of detail. I understand that every government department must have an accounting officer and a principal finance officer. That applies whether the department is ministerial or non-ministerial. Will there be an accounting officer and a principal finance officer for the Statistics Board, and, if so, who will it be? Will the chairman or the National Statistician be the accounting officer? That might help the Committee to understand what the model means in practice.
	I am well aware that there was little opposition to the non-ministerial model during consultation, but I hope that the Minister agrees that the aim of the Bill is to create a statistics body that is actually independent and also has the appearance of independence. In that light, I have tabled the Motion to examine the rationale for using the non-ministerial department and whether it is a robust model for creating the degree of independence that we seek.

Baroness Noakes: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 20. The amendments continue the theme of examining whether the constitutional model for the Statistics Board set out in the Bill is the best one for creating the environment in which trust in statistics can flourish again. They challenge whether the model of a mixed executive and non-executive board is the correct one, and would create a board composed entirely of non-executive members. This does not change the Bill's basic approach, which is to have a non-ministerial government department, a National Statistician, and an executive office within the board to replicate what is currently found in the Office for National Statistics. The amendments are designed to move to a structure that more clearly recognisesthe supervisory or regulatory functions created by the Bill, and the executive or operational functions in the Bill. A later group of amendments, led by Amendment No. 30, allows us to explore the detail of the separation of functions between the board and the National Statistician, and are an essential accompaniment to these amendments.
	I want to be clear that I do not seek to minimise the role or status of the National Statistician. Indeed, we have a great desire to enhance the role of the National Statistician as we go through the Bill. Although the National Statistician would no longer be a member of the board, nor would any of his or her executive colleagues, so the board would have a clear oversight function. We would leave completely intact the National Statistician's role as the board's adviser on statistics, as provided by Clause 28. It is pretty clear that the board would expect the National Statistician to attend all board meetings, except of course when the board specifically appraises the work of the National Statistician. The fact that the National Statistician remains a part of the board while the board appraises his or her work is one of the Bill's problems.
	I mentioned earlier that, so far as I could ascertain, the Statistics Board that is being created is the only example of a non-ministerial department with explicit regulatory as well as operational functions. It is exactly that form of internal conflict that led to the separation of executive and non-executive functions in the BBC, with the non-executive functions being discharged by the BBC Trust. As with our concept for the National Statistician, the role of the director-general of the BBC remains undiminished by the new structural arrangements in the BBC. Arguably, that role would be enhanced because it gives clear operational leadership to the senior executive in the structure.
	The unitary board model of mixing executives and non-executives was created in the private sector for commercial bodies. It has evolved, particularly inthe UK, to a general understanding now enshrined in the corporate governance code, which is overseenby the Financial Reporting Council, that at least half the members of boards of directors, excluding the chairman, are non-executives. This is designed to provide an environment in which entrepreneurialism and profit maximisation can flourish, while providing checks and balances on behalf of the interests of shareholders overall.
	The mixed model of executives and non-executives serves the business community well, but we should be wary of assuming that it is the only model for a corporate body. I am sure that it also works well for public bodies that operate on commercial lines, although there are relatively few of them left in the public sector. It might seem to work quite well in some of the newer regulatory bodies, such as the Financial Services Authority and Ofgem, but there have been no studies, so far as I am aware, of the detailed ways in which those boards work. The fact that they are mixed executive and non-executive does not mean that they operate in line with the private sector model, as found in the combined code. Of course, relatively few bodies combine regulatory and operational functions. Indeed, I am not sure that there are many beyond the BBC. So we cannot assume that the model in this Bill produces the right result.
	I hope that the Minister will answer a few questions which are relevant to this issue. Will he describe how the Government see the role of the chairman developing? They announced last week that the search for the chairman would begin this month, and so there must be a detailed specification. Will the Minister make it available to the Committee? Will the chairman be expected to report publicly on the work of the National Statistician? What will happen to the functioning of the unitary board if the chairman and the other non-executives disagree with the National Statistician?
	We see a potential issue also in the nature of the chairman. I believe it has been said that the role is seen as a significant one which should attract a heavyweight candidate. That gives comfort to those who want a champion for statistics within Whitehall—someone who can kick up a fuss, for example, if resources for statistics are insufficient or if there is non-compliance with the code. But the bigger that role is within a unitary board, the smaller will be the role of the National Statistician, especially if the chairman has a head of assessment overseeing the work of the National Statistician. I think the Minister will agree that when two large roles are found on one board, they cannot both be top dog. As I have said, we want the role and status of the National Statistician to be enhanced, so his or her role in relation to the chairman is important. In Clause 29 the Bill provides that the National Statistician is to be the chief executive of the board, but it is unclear exactly what that is intended to convey. Will the Minister explain what the Government mean by that, and how they see the relative roles of the chairman and chief executive playing out?
	These issues are important because the Government have decided on a unitary structure for the board. Currently there is no confusion between the roles of the chairman of the Statistics Commission and the National Statistician, but throwing the two roles into one board creates a huge potential for confusion or worse. I am concerned that the apparent tidiness of the unitary corporate model will not serve our statistics arrangements well. We ought to pause to see whether there is a better structure which will enhance trust in statistics. I beg to move.

Lord Moser: This is the first of a number of amendments related to the structure of the proposed reforms and therefore it has a crucial bearing on a number of issues we are going to be discussing throughout the Committee stage. I want to speak briefly at this point because I am sure that I will want to speak again when we come to other substantive amendments. It is worth recalling once more the main purpose the Chancellor had in mind when starting us down this road: it is to achieve independence for official statistics with a view to improving trust. That is the whole point here, and as one or two noble Lords have again referred to "trust", as we must throughout our debates, let me say—especially in response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is not in his place—that he is absolutely right to say that we need to give more thought as to why the problem of "trust" has come along. In my view, it clearly relates not to poor statistics but almost entirely to the poor use of statistics by Ministers, politicians generally, advisers, the media and so forth. It is also worth pointing out that this is a greater problem now than it was in the past. I speak from personal experience in my 10 years in charge. Trust was occasionally a problem, but it was not a general one. I can also say, more importantly, that it is hardly a problem in any other country. The chief statistician of Canada, whom I regard as the top dog in our international world, has said repeatedly that he is puzzled why we have the problem here. However, we shall come back to the issue time and again.
	The amendment moved by the noble Baroness relates to the structure of the board, and my reason for wanting to comment on that at this stage is to serve as a reminder of two key issues which I hope we will bear in mind throughout our debates. Issue number one is that the board and the National Statistician are both totally concerned with all official statistics. We are tempted to think of the ONS, which is at the centre, but I remind your Lordships that80 per cent of government statistics stem from outside the ONS.
	Issue number two, which is more crucial for this amendment, is that it is vital that we have a clear distinction in our minds throughout between, on the one hand, the production role—that is, planning the statistical work, collecting, analysing, interpreting and so on—which belongs to the National Statistician and her forces, and on the other hand supervision or scrutiny, which belongs to the board. It is still rather confusing to have the two combined as they are in the Bill. The Minister said at Second Reading:
	"We have ensured that, within the single structure that we propose, there is a clear separation between the board's production and scrutiny responsibilities".—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1445.]
	That is the distinction we all want but, to my innocent eyes, it does not come through in the legal drafting of the Bill. I am not alone. The Royal Statistical Society, no less, to which we owe a great deal of thanks for its help in working through the Bill, called it "a muddle". Time and again in the draft Bill the board is given production responsibilities that integrally belong to the National Statistician, thus confusing the issue and the new system. We still need clarity, which I do not think is a controversial matter. It is for the Government to redraft the Bill so that that clarity is achieved.
	Much more needs to be said on this matter in connection with later amendments, and I do not want to go on at this stage, but the amendment before us is closely linked to the issue of the division between those two functions, which is why I mention it at this point.

Baroness O'Cathain: Like the noble Lord, Lord Moser, I shall be brief. I have an inherent problem with having a totally non-executive board. Part of the reason is that although the National Statistician will be present and sitting at the board, there is no question that it looks as though there are important people on the board and one who is less important. If, as everyone has said, we need this Act in order to ensure the independence of, and rebuild trust in, official statistics, it is imperative—although I do not believe it has mentioned today—that trust in those statistics, once reinstated, is maintained. It is fine in the first flush of a new Act to say, "We have this board, and the National Statistician can sit there". Then, I fear, unless the National Statistician is of huge humility—which is, by the sound of it, difficult—and great patience, he or she will find it increasingly irritating to sit in on a board without the authority of being a board member.
	I have sat on boards since 1984 and, in my experience, the mixed board is the one that works. On the board of Tesco, for example, on which I sat for15 years—well outside the rules that apply now—if Sir Terry Leahy, or Terry Leahy, as he was then, was told that he could sit in on the board when he was operating all the business, with a non-executive chairman, as there was, sitting on it and non-executives members such as me, he would, to use a huge understatement, have been slightly miffed.
	I need a lot of convincing on this. I have spoken to my noble friend and, while we are not exactly on the same side, we both take the view that, if the independence of the board is to be guaranteed and there is to be trust in official statistics, it is imperative to get the best people on the board. I also believe that it is very important to support the National Statistician de facto and de jure.

Lord Newby: This is our first opportunity in Committee to discuss what, by common consent, is the most difficult part of the Bill. How do we accurately define the role of the National Statistician if we want him or her to fulfil the functions about which I suspect we are all agreed?
	These discussions have demonstrated that the role of the board and the production of national statistics are, like the role of the BBC, sui generis. They cannot easily be pigeonholed; we cannot say, "It is justlike that". Therefore, we cannot rely on any straightforward analogies. Equally, while I agree that in principle the difference between the role of the National Statistician and the board is that between production and supervision, we must be clear as we proceed that the National Statistician is solely responsible for production. I do not believe that the role of the board is simply that of supervision or scrutiny; it is not like the Select Committee of both Houses that we have mentioned. One of the board's key purposes is to act as a bulwark against a Government trying to undermine the system; it must help to support the independence of the National Statistician. For that to happen, the National Statistician and supporting colleagues must be on the board, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has just described.
	A relevant analogy is with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. It includes outsiders, but sitting on it are the people doing the detailed work of producing the huge book that members of the committee get every month, against which they take their decision. The reason for having the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief economist and others on the board as executives is that the decisions that the board makes must be seen to have the full involvement of those who work day in, day out to make the assessment. It is important that the chief executive be on the board. Going down the route proposed by the noble Baroness would mean deleting Clause 29(1), which says:
	"The National Statistician is also to be the chief executive of the Board".
	I do not think that he or she would be quite the chief executive—it would be a slightly different role.
	We need to amend the Bill to clarify the role of the National Statistician. I understand why thenoble Baroness has tabled the amendments, butthey would weaken the position of the National Statistician when, broadly speaking, we are seeking to strengthen it.

Lord Croham: We are worried about the public's lack of confidence in statistics. The main reason for that lack of confidence is that figures are constantly misused by Ministers when they are produced. The primary role of the National Statistician is to ensure that we get the statistics that we need and that they are properly produced, but it is only the National Statistician who will have the full knowledge of the limitations of their use. The reason why there are so many are suspicious is that, so often, figures are used in a way that makes honest interpretation quite impossible. The greatest misuse is to use figures of cost for figures of production.

Lord Turnbull: I side in this case with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. It is inconsistent to propose a series of amendments designed to boost the status of the National Statistician and, at the same time, to propose another amendment that would diminish the status of the National Statistician by saying, "You are not even a member of the board".
	A completely different model is to be found in the relationship between the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, but I do not think that anyone is proposing a complete separation of the supervisory board from the executive board. So long as you have one board in two parts, it is essential that the chief executive is a member of that board.
	On the question of trust, the point is not that statistics are used or misused. There is the whole question of definitions. The really difficult definitions are whether things are in the public sector, whether they are underwritten by the Treasury or whether they are part of the borrowing requirement. That is an important battleground and the board is being assigned responsibility for those definitions and methodologies. I want the board to retain that responsibility, so as not to put it exclusively on the National Statistician, thereby exposing him—although in saying this I am getting on to the next set of amendments—to very personal pressure about whether a decision went one way or the other. With these amendments, I am definitelyfor keeping the National Statistician as a full board member, along with the finance director and head of assessment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had a most interesting debate, into which I trespass with some trepidation, given the expertise that has been delivered this afternoon on the crucial principles by which governance can be obtained in these circumstances. I am grateful for the support from all parts of the House, not for the government model—I am not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, or the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, accept the government model; that would be to trespass too far on their good will—but in pointing out the limitations of the amendments before us. After all, it is my task to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, and I hope that she has listened carefully to the representations of noble Lords who have pointed out the problems of a non-executive board.
	We think that we have established the appropriate governance structure for the statistical system, and the membership of the board reflects the structure that we have adopted. We believe that a single institutional structure with one board is the most effective way in which to deliver the goal of greater independence for the ONS and independent scrutiny and oversight over the statistical system as a whole. This also avoids creating competing centres of statistical expertise in the system as a whole. In line with the principles of good corporate governance, the Bill establishes that the board will have a mix of executives and non-executives. I respect the arguments against this mix, but we are legislating for a non-executive majority; the chair will also be non-executive.
	In a framework of one structure, we think it important that the National Statistician should be the board's chief executive. That is the lynchpin of the enhancement of the status of the National Statistician and a crucial part of the objectives that we seek to achieve, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, emphasised. The National Statistician will be the board's chief executive, responsible for the executive, day-to-day running of the ONS and independent of the assessment or scrutiny function. The assessment function will be operationally independent of statistical production in the ONS, as it should be; a statutory post holder, the head of assessment, will report directly to the board, not via the National Statistician, and will lead on assessment. To strengthen the separation, the National Statistician may not take part in deliberations or decisions about assessment of his own statistics, nor may the head of assessment take part in statistical production. It is essential that we keep those two concepts—of production and oversight or scrutiny—separate.
	But we want one board. In our view that is the way to enhance the role of the National Statistician and the status of statistics in public esteem. It is difficult for one body to undertake dual roles. It is clearly more challenging than if a body has one role only. However, we make these demands on public bodies. Local authorities are empowered to promote development within their boundaries and to grant planning permission. A local authority must have a structure that can perform both functions although those functions have, and are clearly intended, to be separate. A body can successfully perform such functions provided that it is accountable. Local authorities are accountable in their audits and to their electorates. The board will be accountable to Parliament for the work that it does.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about the significance of the chair and what role he or she played. Those questions were an undercurrent in other contributions. Without doubt the chair plays a highly significant role, which is why the Government are taking judicious steps to recruit a chair who will enable the new system to be introduced with the least possible disruption. What does the chair's position involve? He will give the body strategic direction and support the National Statistician in his role as chief executive of the board. The chair must also support the head of assessment in the delivery of his executive function. The duality of the functions requires effective chairmanship and board participation in order to embrace the two roles.
	The chair of the board is bound to have a major public role. He or she will appear before parliamentary Select Committees. I put it in the plural but one would be enough to guarantee that anyone seeking the role would expect to defend their annual report and the board's proceedings before Parliament. The chair will comment publicly on the role of the chief officers. He is bound to comment on the role of the National Statistician. The chair will be responsible for the process by which assessment is obtained. He has a very significant role indeed.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked who would be top dog. I understand the question, which is graphic in its clarity. However, it presents the obvious challenge of the extent to which I can and should describe, within the time constraints in which we operate, how the board will work. I make it absolutely clear that the National Statistician is the technical expert and outstanding figure in the production of statistics. Of course, the board must take account of his advice in all matters. The National Statistician will be the chief executive of the board, but the chair—

Baroness Noakes: I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate, although I cannot claim that I sit here surrounded by people who support my propositions. I say to noble Lords who like the idea of a unitary board, because that is what they are most comfortable with in the private sector, that we will have to re-examine whether that model transposes to the area of statistics. I am a great supporter of the unitary model in the private sector. My amendments query whether it is the right model for this set of circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was right in saying that what we have before us is sui generis and that, therefore, we are entitled to design the best solution possible.
	When I asked the Minister what the chief executive would do, he told the Committee that the National Statistician, qua chief executive, would be responsible for the Office for National Statistics. That means that he is a chief executive of the executive office, as created by Clause 29, not chief executive of the board, because, as the Minister rightly reminded us, there will be a separate and independent stream of activity within the board, under the head of assessment, which does not, by definition, come under the National Statistician and therefore under the so-called chief executive of the board. I was trying to draw out that muddle.
	The problem is that because separate and distinct assessment functions are provided for, which we understand, it is inevitable that the National Statistician cannot be a complete chief executive in the sense that he would cover all the activities of the Statistics Board; by definition, responsibility for some of the board's activities will be elsewhere and will be reportable directly to the chairman and non-executives on the board. That is the heart of the problem.
	Two models were offered in support of the proposals in the Bill. The Minister offered the local authority model in support of the ability to have two sets of functions operating within one organisation. That is, indeed, the case, but in that model the chief executive is not a member of the council, but sits outside it; that model works perfectly well without the chief executive being embedded within the main decision-making organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the MPC, which has insiders and outsiders. However, the non-Bank members—the independent members—of the MPC are not non-executive, because they work almost full time at the Bank of England. They have suites of offices and support staff to assist them, and their contracts are at least half time and sometimes more than that in practice. So that is not a fair parallel.
	I shall not press my amendment today, but as we go through the Bill I would like noble Lords to think about the muddle that is inherent in the structure that is to be set up and how we could evolve a better one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: It may be no surprise to the Committee that the fact that Scotland is receiving due consideration on this matter is very pleasing to me. I would not wish to deny that to English regions, if the Committee feels that is proper. I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on the membership being eight. With the Committee's permission, I shall explain why my support is not strictly logical. I am the eighth member of my family to be a Duke in this House. All that I can offer the statisticians is that that shows that each generation has lasted, on average, 37 years. By a happy coincidence, today, 24 April, is the 300th anniversary of my ancestor being promoted to the dukedom and it is over500 years since the title of Earl was conferred on my family.

Baroness Noakes: I rise briefly to move Amendment No. 8 and to introduce the various amendments in this very large group. They have the effect of replacing the Treasury's role in relation to the Statistics Board with that of the Cabinet Office.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moser, tried hard, with our support and that of the Liberal Democrat Benches, to add his name to the amendments, but was defeated by the greater powers of bureaucracy, which I can assure Members of the Committee are still alive and well in your Lordships' House. I hope that the Committee will accept my brief introduction to the group and then let the noble Lord, Lord Moser, speak in more detail to the amendments. He will address the substance of the group and I will start with some of the mechanics.
	There are nine amendments in the group to which the Liberal Democrat Benches and these Benches have subscribed. They are Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12,14, 16, 19, 23, 26 and 239. In addition, there are23 amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Oakeshott, with which we fully agree. They are Amendments Nos. 27, 75, 200, 205, 206 and all the other amendments in the group from 210 onwards. There are two amendments—Amendments Nos. 208 and 209—which we understand that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, or the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, will not press. That leaves 20 amendments which are similar in form but different in detail. Amendments Nos. 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142 and 145 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising and the noble Lord, Lord Moser, amend various clauses to replace the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Cabinet Office. The equivalent Liberal Democrat amendments—Amendments Nos. 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 139, 141, 143 and 146—use the Prime Minister as the replacement.
	We sought arbitration through the Public Bill Office, which advised us that both groups would be acceptable. Members of the Committee will therefore understand that this issue has involved the most delicate negotiation between the parties. I can today announce that we have forged an historic agreement, as on this occasion we will be supporting the Liberal Democrats. This has the advantage of replacing one office of government with another—replacing the Chancellor's with the Prime Minister's—and therefore probably not making much difference in practice, at least for the next couple of years.
	Before turning to the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to speak to these amendments, I remind the Committee that the restoration of public trust is the driving force behind our approach to the Bill. This allows usto create a new regime which is in fact independent but perceived as independent. We should not underestimate the power of symbols to indicate a new beginning. Perhaps I may quote what the former director of statistics at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Mr Tom Griffin, said in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee in another place:
	"To sever the link with the Treasury now would be a very visible move towards independence".
	I beg to move.

Lord Moser: I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to speak at this point. I have no problem with the bureaucracy here; it was just that partly because of my age it took me some time to get up to the Public Bill Office. I was therefore a bit late, but never mind.
	I support the amendment, which would give the residual roles for Ministers to the Cabinet Office rather than to the Treasury. It is an important issue and I assure Members of the Committee that I am not governed by nostalgia. I do not regard my days as golden—they were interesting—but this issue is relevant to the purposes of the Bill; namely, independence from Ministers and trust, to which we keep returning. We need to remind ourselves of what we are talking about: the residual roles. The main roles performed by Treasury Ministers in the past are to be transferred to the new Statistics Board. We have all welcomed that publicly and in your Lordships' House. It is to be a non-ministerial department that will report to Parliament. Everybody has welcomed it including the Royal Statistical Society, the Statistics Commission and your Lordships. Equally, everybody has recognised that there will be some so-called residual roles. They are not major. Some appear in later clauses to do with what happens if the board is responsible for some failures in operation. There are also questions about appointments, who lays the report before Parliament, PQs and other matters. There are a number of residual responsibilities, which are all that we are talking about.
	I shall say a word about the historical background. Noble Lords probably know that the Central Statistical Office, which was the origin of official statistics in this country, was set up by Winston Churchill in 1941. That great man had wisdom in that, as in everything else. First, he placed it squarely in the Cabinet Office. Secondly, he was clear that the real issue at that high time of the war was linking statistics coming from different departments—the role of co-ordination. That is why he put the Central Statistical Office in the Cabinet Office, and that is why I think that the residual responsibilities should be there. In my day, and for long after—until 1989—the statistical service reported to the Prime Minister via the Cabinet Secretary. I speak from experience of three Prime Ministers when I say that that was a very helpful situation for the statisticians. Several times— twice in my period in office—the Chancellor tried to take us over. It was resisted for reasons that still apply today. There is no antipathy to the Treasury in anything I say; I simply think that it would make more sense in view of the Chancellor's vision in leading us down this route of independence if the Statistics Board ended up under the Prime Minister in the Cabinet Office.
	My main points are few. First, we have a decentralised system, and we are sticking with it. It inevitably keeps coming up in our debates. The system is different from those in most other countries where all statistics come from a single statistics office, which makes life much simpler, not least in keeping a distance from politicians and on the key issue of trust. We do not have that system, and it is right that we do not. I used to argue for the decentralised system. I still do, and I am very pleased that in these reforms, it remains. It means that at the centre we have the Office for National Statistics, which is responsible for all the key economic data: GNP, unemployment and much else, including population figures and other macro data. It is a key office, and it comes under the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary. However,80 per cent of all statistical series come out of other ministries: education, the Home Office, health, environment. That is where most of the most sensitive figures come from, and where there is most need for improvement and governance of some kind.
	In passing, I shall say that my suspicious mind has some doubts about whether the Bill has the backing of the Government, as opposed to the backing of the Chancellor and the Treasury—I hope the Minister will reply to this because it is relevant not only to this issue but also to much else that we are discussing. I say this because there are one or two issues in the Bill where I sense the hand of "hanging on" from departmental Ministers. We will come to them later: one is national statistics and the other is pre-release. I would like to be reassured that independence—which was the Chancellor's invention, and all praise to him—is meant to apply for all government statistics. It means independence from the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Education, the Home Secretary and so on. I need some reassurance on that.
	That query is relevant to this amendment because the real argument in favour of the Cabinet Office as opposed to the Treasury is that the Treasury is a major and very important consumer of statistics: about20 per cent of all statistics, but very important ones. On the whole, even for the residual responsibilities, which are all that is left for discussion, I would rather have the Cabinet Office as the ultimate authority—the department in charge—because it is not a consumer of statistics. I cannot think of a better department. The Treasury is a major consumer of data—although only 20 per cent—so there is always the risk of distorting priorities in what is done in the statistical system. It may be less of a risk in reality than in perception, but it is certainly a risk in perception. People will find it harder to accept that we have really gone down the road of independence if a major consumer has responsibility for statistics.
	My second point also goes back to Winston Churchill. As we have a decentralised system, it is crucial that the residual responsibilities should be placed in a department that can deal easily and neutrally with co-ordination across all the departments. I regard our statistical system as a single whole. It is spread, but all the bits fit together. As was said at Second Reading, the national accounts that come out of ONS are totally dependent on all the other departments.
	Finally, I shall describe how the system works. I speak from experience when I say that the department with responsibility for the residual matters has two enormous advantages if it is the Cabinet Office. First, it has the advantage of co-ordinating across all the departments. I used to find it very easy, as did my successor chief statisticians, to link from the base of the Cabinet Office with fellow Permanent Secretaries throughout the departments when issues were at stake. The fact that we were the neutral central department, not the Treasury with which all departments have different relationships, made it very simple.
	That is at official level. I hardly need to say that it was an enormous advantage, with all the respect I can muster to past and present Chancellors, that my ultimate boss was the Prime Minister. Not only did I have had access to the Prime Minister—that is obvious and in the Bill in a different clause—but it was seen publicly and, above all, throughout Whitehall that the Prime Minister was ultimately in charge. That, incidentally, was very real. I would see the three Prime Ministers I served fairly regularly, probably once every three or four weeks and I often had contact with them in between. These were real responsibilities. In the present situation, we are talking about minor final responsibilities and we are talking more about the public vision and perception of independence, and therefore trust.
	It is enormously helpful if, for example, there remains a problem with waiting list statistics or crime or migration statistics, the Chief Statistician and the board have behind them the Prime Minister—and I suspect that the next Prime Minister will feel this quite strongly as a necessary responsibility.
	So for those basic reasons—first, that the Treasury is a main consumer, and, secondly, that from the point of view of co-ordination and keeping the whole system under integrity and control—I think that the Cabinet Office is to be much preferred. I hope that the Government may decide to take the final responsibility back to where it used to be.

Lord Newby: Not surprisingly, as we put our names to some of these amendments, we support them. I do not wish to repeat the extremely powerful arguments made so far in this debate; I just want to maketwo points about the strength of the argument, the moving of responsibility for the Statistics Board—the residual responsibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Moser, described them—to the Cabinet Office.
	The first point harks back to the debate we had a few moments ago about regions. One of the key features of the Statistics Board is that it has to deal with the fact that the nations as well as the regions of England have a major part to play in the whole production of statistics—that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to produce their own statistics. It seems to me that if one is looking at a place in government which worries and thinks about the roles of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in the round, it is the Cabinet Office rather than the Treasury. As a co-ordinator of the inputs of the nations and regions, the Cabinet Office seems a more logical place.
	The second argument relates to resources, paradoxically in some ways. I think that a Treasury in charge of the Statistics Board is more likely to be macho about its budget than the Cabinet Office, which is worried about the quality of the statistics produced. The Minister has said on a number of occasions, "The budget has been set for five years ahead. Why should one be worried?". One should be worried because it has not been set necessarily at an adequate level. Certainty has a value of its own, obviously, but if the level is wrong certainty is not sufficient.
	At Second Reading I referred to the cuts in staffing among statistical staff, and the consequence of that along with the move to Newport in terms of the production of statistics moving forward. Since Second Reading I have received a communication from someone who works within the ONS and shares these concerns. I would like to refer to that now, partly because it is absolutely relevant, but also because I think that the question of the short-term situation in which we find ourselves is pretty serious. This person is concerned because he believes that senior staff within the ONS are more worried about the financial targets they have been asked to meet than in maintaining statistical quality. He continues:
	"The reality regarding relocation is that very few London staff are able or willing to move to Newport and it is proving impossible to recruit sufficient replacements in South Wales.The most worrying example at present is the division that produces the RPI and CPI. The Division is due to relocate this year. So far none of the 35 staff have chosen to relocate, including international experts. The risks to the production and quality of these key statistics is of serious concern to the London staff.
	There is serious danger that similar problems will occur with National Accounts and labour market statistics. The impact on measuring the economy and setting economic policy could be disastrous".
	That is the consequence of Treasury control of our statistical service. It is only an ancillary argument to some of the extremely powerful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, but it certainly reinforces me in my belief that the Treasury is not an adequate place to manage and retain residual responsibility for the Statistics Board.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Last week, the Evening Standard carried headlines on the clash between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party over the possible candidature of Greg Dyke as Mayor of London. I do not think that there will be headlines this evening saying, "Liberals and Conservatives reach agreement on an amendment in the House of Lords". The reason for that is quite straightforward. My noble friend Lord Lea emphasised the point when he asked what we are really talking about. We are talking about a Minister's residual functions. The necessary independence that is sought, and thus the enhanced respect for our national statistics, derives from the creation of the board and its attendant structures, not from the sponsoring body. As we discussed earlier today, the Minister's residual functions act as a link with Parliament through the board's annual report.
	There is the role in making appointments, but one that fits with the framework of guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments. There is also the limited role with regard to resources, as we have already indicated, although not to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, because we did so not in tablets of stone but merely by Ministers from the Dispatch Box saying that we intend to introduce a five-year budgetary settlement for the board to guarantee its independence. Who will provide those resources, whatever happens to the amendments? The Treasury will. My noble friend Lord Lea is therefore almost certainly right that we are straining to crack a small nut.
	I will address the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, in a moment. First, he should thank heaven that he arrived a little late at the Table Office, because all the amendments are deficient. Should they be carried, we would have to make them coherent and put them into proper legislation on Report. Ministerial departments to which they relate do not have a formal, legal personality. Statutory functions exercised in those departments are conferred on the Ministers of the Crown, and the amendments should address that and not adopt the defective positions that they have adopted. That is a small matter, but it may help the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to recognise that he may be behind the amendments in spirit but that it is better that his name has not been added to defective amendments.
	On the broad issues, I do not need to go through the vast list of the amendments because they are all virtually identical and address one significant issue. Let me emphasise that the Bill is constructed on the basis of the independence of national statistics. That is why we have set out elaborately to define the degree of the board's independence and its responsibilityfor the construction, development, recording and assessment of national statistics. I attest again to the fact that the Treasury Select Committee in the other place agreed with the Government that the residual responsibilities—here I emphasise once more that they are merely residual in nature—should remain with the Treasury. The Government remain of that view.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Moser, indicated, the Treasury has vast experience of statistics. It is important for the Committee to recognise that 20 per cent of all statistics produced are related to the work of the Treasury. While I note that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, is departing from his support for the Government on this group of amendments, he did testify to the importance of the role of statistics to the work of the Treasury. The co-ordinating and reporting role which the Treasury plays in, for example, the spending review and the setting of public service agreements means that it is ideally placed to play the residual role with respect to the board's relationship with the Government which is defined by the legislation. I should add that the Treasury has considerable expertise in making high-profile appointments to independent bodies; it does so currently to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Services Authority. But again it is carefully specified that that role would be consistent with the requirements laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	Consistent with the Select Committee's recommendation, we have set out to ensure that the board should have independence. Although we still maintain that the Treasury should continue to perform the residual functions, it is why we intend to put the funding on to a five-year basis, thus guaranteeing the board very considerable independence, which again meets an issue we discussed earlier this afternoon.
	What I want to emphasise is this: of course it is important that eventually the board should be publicly accountable. Its public accountability will be through Parliament. Parliament is the means by which the board's annual report can be considered and the basis on which any dissatisfaction with its work can be expressed. Further, it should be recognised that the residual functions of any Minister are exactly that: they are residual and limited functions. We have it on evidence from the other place that the view is that those functions should be with the Treasury, and the Government have always maintained that position. One noble Lord suggested that there might be doubts about the Government's view, but I can point out the obvious fact that when a Minister speaks from the Dispatch Box, he or she is speaking on behalf of the whole Government. What I am reflecting today is clear government policy on this issue.
	I recognise the element of symbolic gesture here. We are not in the business of making symbolic gestures in legislation. We are about the business of creating an independent board with clear lines of responsibility, distance in its funding from the Treasury, and being responsible for the quality, status and respect in which national statistics are held. Those are the objectives behind this legislation and why it has been brought forward. It is clear evidence of the Government's intention to improve things in this way and it would be a pity if the group of amendments before us, which are in any case defective, was carried purely for its symbolic value when we have the reality of improvement to our national statistics embodied in the Bill.

Baroness Noakes: We have had a good debate. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, has reinforced his main points and I will not seek to do that again. In addition to giving us an interesting view of the background to our national statistical service, he emphasised thatthe most important point is the perception of independence. A number of noble Lords who have spoken feel strongly about this. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to this as the single most important sign of change—a sign to the outside world that the new statistics arrangements are a break with those of the past. We have to remember that at the moment the Treasury is associated with what happens in the Office for National Statistics in ways that are not always helpful to the perception of independence. Whatever the truth behind events such as the Network Rail decision, there lingers a thought that the Treasury has more involvement than perhaps it should.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, reminded us about the issue of resources. It is important that someone in Whitehall is batting for the Statistics Board in any discussions about resources for statistics. We cannot trust the Treasury always to make the right decisions, whether on a one-year or a five-year basis.
	The noble Lord said that these amendments are technically deficient. They were approved for use by the Public Bill Office of another place and we have had specific discussions on their terms with the relevant office of your Lordships' House. I believe that these amendments are fit to be put before noble Lords for decision and I seek leave to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Howard of Rising: It is to be hoped that this amendment will continue the useful debate in another place on the appointment of non-executive board members. The Minister made it clear that he saw no loss of independence for the board if the Minister played the primary role in deciding the appointment. Indeed, he considered it "inappropriate" for anyone else to make the decision, given the executive function of the board. Although some would think that this argument is rather misapplied, given that the Treasury is only to appoint the non-executive members of the board, the amendment is intended not to deal with who makes the appointment but to probe what procedure the Government are planning to use to make the appointments.
	The Minister in another place made the commitment to,
	"make appointments entirely in line with the guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments".—[Official Report, Commons Statistics and Registration Service Bill Committee, 16/1/07; col. 69.]
	Obviously it is good to hear that, especially as the code of practice includes a requirement for every appointment to be scrutinised by an independent panel. It is to be hoped that the noble Lord will agree to put this reassurance in the Bill, as our amendment would do. In addition, it would be a pleasure to hear just how the Minister will decide on who should be appointed. There has been a trend towards the use of shortlists that are often not very short at all, off which the Minister is able to choose his preferred appointee. This is clearly less independent than being givena single recommendation by an independent panel, which the Minister can reject or approve as he sees fit. Will the noble Lord reassure the House that this appointment will be filled after an independent recommendation of just one person? I beg to move.

Lord Newby: The amendment is in two parts. It is keen to ensure that there is open competition and that that competition should be overseen by people who are independent of the board and, as one presumably now says, the Cabinet Office.
	It is essential to have an open competition. It is important to have an assurance that that will be the case. The Minister referred earlier to the track record of the Treasury and the Chancellor in making major appointments; he referred to the MPC. Whatever the strengths of the individuals who sit on the MPC—and those individuals have been very good—therehas been nothing vaguely approaching an open competition for appointments to it. There has not even been a closed competition; it has been a question not of a knock in the middle of the night but of a phone call, with the Chancellor asking "Wouldyou like to be on the MPC?". It is important thatthat approach should not be repeated for theStatistics Board and that there should be an open competition.
	I am less convinced that the competition should be overseen by people who are independent of the board and the Cabinet Office. If the competition is open, the Cabinet Office should be capable of conducting it in an acceptable manner. Presumably that is the way in which the Nolan principles operate in most cases—there is an open competition but the department or the Minister making the appointment makes it without the belt-and-braces approach of having an independent overseer.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, Amendment No. 24 would remove the ability of the board to pay compensation to a member if, for any reason, they left office early or the Treasury considered it otherwise necessary to pay compensation. It is important to maintain this provision. It might be required if, for example, a non-executive member of the board were to finish an appointment early for reasons of ill health. I have served on a board where a non-executive director became extremely ill and was paid compensation to leave.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made a point that does not have great substance. He chose as an example the case of Alistair Graham, which has been discussed previously in this House. He was not sacked. He came to the end of his contracted periodof chairing the commission and, as with every other previous chairman, his term of office was not renewed. I do not accept the notion that the Government might try to get rid of members of the board who cause them discomfort by offering compensation, but a non-executive member having to leave for reasons of ill health is an important consideration. For that reason, we are not prepared to agree to the removal of the subsection.

Lord Newby: The amendment raises an important point. On the one hand, one wants to have a refreshed board, but equally one does not want to be too rigid. The problem with public appointments that go on too long and re-reappointments has, in part, been exemplified by the re-reappointment of Kate Barker. She is no doubt an extremely good member of the Monetary Policy Committee. However, further to our discussion on perceptions, it is perceived that she is very close to the Government and that that has played a part in her re-reappointment.
	One could envisage a situation in which a member of the Statistics Board—someone like the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to pick an individual at random—was thought an estimable member who should remain on the board for more than the normal span. Therefore, the policy that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, set out—that there should be a norm of no more than two terms but the possibility, too, of exceptional circumstances and an explanation of why they are exceptional—seems the best way forward. I suspect that if the Minister could reassure us that that iswhat the Government have in mind, we would be reassured!

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can reassure all noble Lords because this is, in a sense, a technical amendment.
	Amendment No. 28 would create a time limit of10 years, which is the limit contained in the current OCPA guidance. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said many things that I absolutely agree with. She mentioned the rules of corporate governance—and here we have the OCPA guidance, which is widely accepted for public appointments. However, we want to maintain flexibility and consistency in case, for any reason, the OCPA guidance should change in future, for example; so it seems sensible not to specify the maximum period in legislation. For example, good practice may be that the period should be somewhat shorter, or even a bit longer in a few years, in the light of further experience with appointments of this type. Whatever happens, it is the Government's intention to continue to follow OCPA guidance.
	To answer a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, we would not usually expectto appoint for a year alone, but there may be circumstances in which a reappointment is made and a year or two years is appropriate. That takes up the noble Lord's point about continuity and ensuring that not all non-executive members leave at once.
	I hope that it reassures noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate that we will continue to follow the OCPA guidance rules.

Lord Newby: This group of amendments is our second bite of the cherry in looking at the role of the National Statistician as opposed to the board. Earlier in the debate the Minister implied that we did not accept the Government's model for the new Statistics Board. The key element of that model is that it must be a unitary board. We accept that it should be a unitary board; the question that we are grappling with now, having accepted the principle that the National Statistician is a member of that board, is exactly how the relationship between the National Statistician and the board works and his formal roles and responsibilities.
	One reason why we are dealing with a situation here that is sui generis—which I think that everyone has accepted—is that, unlike in virtually every other situation that we have discussed, whether it is a corporate board or the BBC, the National Statistician is a technician and has deep expertise on matters on which the non-executive members of the board have virtually no expertise. In most cases those are probably very detailed issues. That is why it is so important that, when the National Statistician is exercising his professional judgment on these technical issues, he can do it independently, and that the board realises that its role is to ensure that the process is followed properly rather than trying to do the job of the National Statistician when he exercises those technical powers.
	We have tabled a raft of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has joined in on some of them, and she and her colleagues have tabled others. We are trying in all these amendments to introduce clarity to achieve that purpose, to give the National Statistician clear independence to do a technical job properly and to ensure that he plays a full part on the board.
	I shall briefly describe our principal amendments. Amendment No. 30 makes explicit the point that everybody made when we discussed this matter earlier; namely, that the National Statistician is employed to operate independently of the board, with scrutiny and oversight of that role provided by the board. Noble Lords used that phraseology earlier.
	Amendment No. 34 is one of a raft of amendments which deal with slightly poor drafting. It is not a hugely substantive point but at present the Bill says that the board produces statistics. The one thing on which everybody is agreed is that the board does not produce statistics; the National Statistician does. Given that this and a number of similar amendments make this point, I hope very much that the Government will agree that is the case and will accept them. It is not a matter of principle but of having drafting which achieves the purpose that all noble Lords wish to achieve.
	Amendment No. 30 describes the role of the National Statistician and Amendment No. 40 describes the role of the board as we see it. Amendment No. 47 explains how the board and the National Statistician should relate to each other as the board will be responsible for monitoring and assessing the performance of the National Statistician against her assigned responsibilities.
	Amendment No. 95 attempts to rectify sloppy drafting. Clause 18(1) states:
	"The Board may itself produce and publish statistics".
	As I said, the one thing the board does not do is produce statistics. The amendment seeks to delete "itself".
	Amendment No. 101 relates to who should consult the Bank of England in respect of changes to the RPI. This is not a matter for the board; the National Statistician is responsible for recalibrating the RPI. She should perform that function rather than the board. Amendment No. 102 is consequential on that amendment.
	Amendment No. 154 is substantive. It would prevent the board instructing the National Statistician on how to do her technical job. This is not purely a theoretical or drafting matter. A high profile example arose in recent years where the National Statistician had to exercise judgment in dealing with Railtrack. It seems to us and our advisers that if the board intervened in circumstances where the National Statistician was exercising her technical responsibility, it would potentially be subject to judicial review because it does not have the technical expertise to exercise the judgment that is required in such a case. Therefore, it is important that Amendments Nos. 154 and 156 are passed to recognise that.
	Amendment No. 168 is consequential. Amendments Nos. 170, 173 and 175 relate to personal information. It seems to us that the National Statistician rather than the board should hold that information as part of her production function.
	Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 186 and 188 relate to access to information and who grants access to approved researchers. It seems to us that that is logically a matter for the National Statistician, not the board.
	This is rather a rag-bag set of amendments. However, the amendments seek to clarify the role of the National Statistician, tidy up what seems to usto be infelicitous drafting, and achieve technical improvements through this series of minor changes, as I think noble Lords on all sides of the Committee wish. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I agree with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said. To my mind this goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. The only point on which I disagree with the noble Lord is with regard to his reference to infelicitous drafting. With respect, I do not think that is the case. I believe that the Government are genuinely confused about the role of the National Statistician and that of the board. As the noble Lord said, I thought we were all agreed that the production and dissemination of statistics is the job of the National Statistician, while the job of the board is to oversee and scrutinise that process. Yet here we have in the Bill as drafted the board doing one thing after another that amounts to the production or dissemination of statistics.
	The noble Lord took us through the whole range of the amendments. This is one of the most important groups of amendments and we have to get this right. I fear that at the moment there is confusion. Our advisers describe it simply as very muddled. If ever there were a need for clarity, it is in differentiating between the function of the National Statistician, the professional man or woman—one must say woman because the post is held by a woman at the moment—who has the professional expertise and must have the professional independence to use that expertise, and that of the board which oversees the process.
	I draw a parallel with the time when I chaired a health trust and had a consultant surgeon on my board. There was never any conceivable suggestion that I could tell him how to do his job. He was there in a somewhat different capacity. Any suggestion that non-executive chairmen or directors can tell professional people how to do their jobs is absurd. My right honourable friend David Cameron has made the point that we need to trust professional people and give them the independence to get on with their jobs and not tell them what to do the whole time. I fear that, as the Bill as drafted, this is totally confused, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made very clear. I regard this as an extremely important set of amendments. I hope that when the time comes we shall vote to get clarity because the position is not clear at the moment.

Lord Desai: Let me add one more thing to what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said, with whom I agree. Statistics are a technical matter, and we require a technically competent National Statistician to be in charge of them. However, there are statistics thatwill be socially explosive. I mentioned the census in my Second Reading speech. Questions of census definitions of identity will come. I would prefer it not to be the National Statistician who takes the heat of the moment but the board and especially the chairman of the board. We must remember that statistics may look technical to statisticians, buta lot of people view them as quite incendiary,explosive stuff. For that, we need the board to protect the National Statistician and to allow theNational Statistician to do his or her work as well as possible.

Baroness Noakes: I will speak to AmendmentNo. 34 and the other amendments in this group, some of which have my name attached. Some of them are in the names of those on these Benches alone, some have been tabled with the Liberal Democrats, and some have been tabled with the noble Lord, Lord Moser. Amendment No. 40 rejoices in the support of all of us.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, moved his Amendment No. 30, which leads this group. I suggest to him that he has in part thrown the baby outwith the bathwater, since his amendment deletes Clause 5(2)(b), and in doing so he would not allow the board to set the terms and conditions of the National Statistician's appointment, including those relating to dismissal. I still think that is important, so we cannot support that amendment, although we agree with the thrust of it, which is to emphasise that the National Statistician has to operate independently within the board.
	Noble Lords know that my preference was for a non-executive board, as I outlined when I spoke to Amendment No. 2, and the amendments attempt to tease out the split between executive and oversight functions. Even if we stick with a unitary structure, there should be much more clarity about the oversight functions of the board and the executive functions of the National Statistician. Therefore, we believe that all or part of this group of amendments is necessary.
	Our amendments in this group are formulated slightly differently to those of the Liberal Democrats, and I will briefly outline our approach of placing more functions in the name of the National Statistician rather than the board. That should go beyond the production of statistics in Clause 6, which both Front Benches have suggested. We have also suggested the definitions for official statistics in Clause 9, which is in Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 53; the production of statistics in Clause 18, which is Amendments Nos. 94 and 96 to 99; and the compilation of the retail prices index in Clause 90, which is in Amendment No. 100, which is in addition to the consultation of the Bank of England, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby referred to in separate amendments, which we agree with. There is also the provision of statistical services in Clause 20. It seems to me to be nonsense that the board is going to be offering statistical services; it must be the National Statistician via the executive office. In addition, we have amendments to Clauses 21, 22, 23, 26, 29 and 31.
	To put it simply, we have written the National Statistician more into the Bill and have, therefore, reduced the functions attributable to the board. The board will remain, but with the important function of monitoring the National Statistician, as set out in our Amendment No. 40 and the Liberal Democrats' Amendment No. 34. Their Amendment No. 47 also mentions assessing the performance of the National Statistician, which is a helpful addition and we support it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, suggested that the board should have a bigger role, which would de-emphasise the role of the National Statistician, so that if there was trouble, she could hide behind the board. That is one possibility, but that would downgrade her role. She should be the public face of statistics and, while she may need to be backed by the board in her judgments, she should certainly not hide behind the board in all circumstances.

Lord Turnbull: My point was that Clause 28 makes clear the status of the National Statistician as the principal adviser. That is where her strength comes from; her advice must be taken into account and can be overruled in only exceptional circumstances. I was certainly not trying to downgrade the position of the National Statistician, which is why I earlier supported the fact that she should be the chief executive of the board.

Baroness Noakes: I am grateful for that clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, but if the National Statistician is seen as the board's adviser and the board is still in the front line, the public perception of her will be that this is a back-room person, not a front-line person. That is what we need to tease out in these amendments.
	The Minister will be aware that the Royal Statistical Society, the Statistics Commission and the Treasury Select Committee in another place are at one on this issue. If we allow the Bill to remain without amendment, we will have created much scope for misunderstanding and muddle which would almost certainly lead to the undermining of trust—and we are trying to create trust in statistics.
	Perhaps the Minister would deal with the practical impact of some real-life examples. Suppose that expert users in local government, with academic support, criticise local government finance methodology on technical grounds—for example, that the weights in a linear model are not derived in a sensible way and that a non-linear approach would be better. The board agrees with that, but the National Statistician and the Department for Communities and Local Government argue that the criticisms are unfounded and that there is no case to answer. Whose opinion prevails? The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, will say that the National Statistician is the adviser and that any disagreement with that needs to be made public; but is that a sensible way to go about this? Should it not be the National Statistician who makes that judgment and the board should deal with any issues relating to the National Statistician's performance if it believes that those judgments are incorrect or do not gain a proper degree of support in the communities affected by those judgments.
	These are difficult issues. We are creating a board with oversight functions but to which we give most of the functions; those functions are then carried out by the National Statistician who somehow hides behind the board. This has not been thought through and executed properly. I hope that the Minister will either accept some of the amendments, although I am sure that he will not accept all of them, or agree to come back at Report with government amendments to sort out this mess.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has advanced the cause of her amendments and I am grateful also to all other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate—and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his amendments. I am not going to accept any of the amendments this evening, but this has been a useful debate in clarifying some of the issues and I wish to say a little more about that in due course. First, let me explain why I cannot accept the bulk of the amendments.
	The Bill creates a new, independent Statistics Board, reflecting the Government's commitment to two key principles: first, where appropriate, devolving Ministerial power in statute to credible independent institutions with a clear remit set by government and Parliament and, secondly, leadership by a board, which means sharing accountability across a group of individuals with a range of expertise, rather than vesting all authority in one individual.
	Given the unique features of the UK's strongly supported decentralised system of statistical production, the Government have concluded that it would be best to establish a single oversight board to scrutinise the statistical system, and to provide the top governance layer in an independent ONS, reflecting the key goals to put statistical production and scrutiny on an independent footing. One of the key reasons for that is to avoid creating competing, independent centres of "statistical expertise" that might undermine confidence in the system. In the Government's chosen model, the board is able to draw on the professional advice of the independent statutory National Statistician, rather than requiring its own separate independent professional adviser.
	As Ministers have effectively been removed from the accountability structure for ONS, it is absolutely fundamental to replace that governance role, and a new statutory board will undertake the role that Ministers currently undertake. Within that single structure, the Government have included mechanisms to ensure clear delineation of production and scrutiny responsibilities. However, I recognise that there is uncertainty in parts of the Chamber on how clear we have been on these matters. That is why this debate, to which I will respond, has advanced the cause further.
	The National Statistician is required to establish an executive office of the board, to which she must appoint the other executive board members and can appoint other staff. It is through that office that we expect the executive activity of statistical production to be undertaken on a day-to-day basis, just as the ONS does now. Some have suggested that the legislation involves some kind of downgrading of the post of National Statistician. We regard that post as being extremely important and high status. Unlike at present, the post will be a statutory, Crown appointment and key roles are designated within our proposals.
	The National Statistician is the board's chief professional adviser, she is the chief executive of the board, she is head of the executive office responsible for establishing, managing and leading that office and its staff, and although this is not in the legislation, we intend that she will be the head of the Government Statistical Service. The assessment function will be operationally independent of statistical production in the executive office. A statutory post holder, the head of assessment, reporting directly to the board, will lead the assessment function and all the staff working on assessment. The head of assessment cannot work on statistical production and will not be part ofthe executive office. We are seeking to establishthat structure within the Bill and I recognise that doubts have been expressed about aspects of that structure.
	I turn, first, to the amendments spoken to bythe noble Lord, Lord Newby, which would require the National Statistician to operate independently of the board but with scrutiny of the National Statistician provided by the boardI understand some of the thinking behind this proposal but I consider that it would confuse the governance model and leave blurred lines of accountability. For example, under Amendment No. 30, the National Statistician would be employed by the board but she would act independently of it and therefore not be accountable to it.
	The Government believe that it is right that the board provides a top layer of governance for the statistics office—currently the ONS—replacing the role that Ministers currently undertake where they are not involved in day-to-day operations but provide strategic oversight and help to set direction. The majority non-executive board will provide support for, and exercise a challenge function to, the National Statistician and her executive team in the usual role played by non-executive boards. We expect the board to feed into and sign-off long-term strategic documents, such as high-level business plans for statistical production, as well as take a key role in issues such as high-level risk management.
	As I said earlier, the National Statistician's role is clear and her status is assured in the Bill. As I indicated, in addition to the functions that I identified, the Government also intend the National Statistician to be the head of the Government Statistical Service, leading the professional development of staff across government and having responsibility for maintaining staff development functions to ensure the availability of skilled, professional statisticians across government. I believe that that is clear and that AmendmentsNos. 30, 40 and 47 muddy the waters.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, spoke to a large group of similar amendments, which all seek to reassign responsibilities in the Bill from the board to the National Statistician. As I have already said, we expect the National Statistician to undertake the largely executive functions on the board's behalf through the executive office that she will be obliged to establish. Under Clause 29(2), the National Statistician may exercise all the board's functions, with a couple of limited exceptions, related to that separate assessment function.
	There is also another lock to assure the National Statistician's rightful and clear role as adviser to the board on all statistical matters. The board is required to publish and report to Parliament, including the reasons why it overrules the National Statistician's advice on technical issues, if indeed it does so. That would be a significant action by the board and would require publicity.
	The board is the legal entity which will be statutorily responsible for the exercise of the functions established in the Bill. This provides a governance structure that allows corporate oversight of executive and assessment functions, while maintaining a single centre of expertise for statistics.
	As has been reiterated this evening and in other quarters—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to it—there has been some confusion about the unitary model adopted in the Bill. I do not accept that. We are clear about the model that we are following. One corporate legal entity has statutory responsibility for discharging all the statutory functions conferred by the Bill, acting through a professional executive, except in relation to certain reserved functions; namely questions of assessment. That is a fairly familiar set-up for governance arrangements throughout government and the wider public sector, and we think it is an appropriate model for the board. That is why I express difficulty in accepting the amendments, although I recognise that some of them are probing and that they intend to ensure that we are clear about these functions.
	In speaking to Amendment No. 95, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggested that there was some anomaly in the drafting. However, the use of the word "itself" is to make it clear that this clause, unlike the preceding ones, is about statistics which the board ultimately produces, rather than the statistics that other organisations, such as government departments, produce and which the board monitors. We have already discussed why the Government are committed to the principle that the board should be ultimately responsible for statistical production, although on a day-to-day basis the National Statistician will run the organisation responsible for that delivery. So, in an attempt to preserve the clarity of this clause, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that his amendment would cause some degree of confusion.
	Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 would require the National Statistician, as well as the board, to exercise their functions efficiently under the terms set out in Clause 26. The board has ultimate responsibility for the functions established in the Bill and it has ultimate responsibility for the proper discharge of those functions, even if delegated to the National Statistician. Therefore, only the board can properly be ultimately and legally responsible—the point that we are considering in the Bill—for the efficient exercise of those functions, although we would of course expect the National Statistician to play a full part in operating efficiently as a member of the board and as the board's chief executive.
	Amendment No. 150 seeks to make the National Statistician chief executive of the executive office, rather than the board's chief executive. We do not regard this as a necessary or helpful change. The board, as a corporate body, needs a chief executive. Parliament will expect a single person to be accountable for the activities of the board as accounting officer. In response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I indicated that that accounting officer would be the National Statistician. The chief executive need not be operationally involved in every aspect of the board's activities to discharge that responsibility, and the Bill ensures that that is the case.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 154, 155 and 156 seek to alter the governance arrangements that we have established and would prohibit the board from directing the National Statistician and staff of the executive office on the exercise of executive functions. Again, I simply repeat what I have said before: we have chosen what we believe to be the right governance structure in this respect.
	I said "finally" but I have overlooked one amendment. Amendment No. 157seeks to alter the name of the executive office, making it no longer "an executive office of the Board" but just "an executive office". I cannot agree with that. The executive office that the National Statistician is to establish will ultimately be under the board's direction, and consequently it is appropriate to describe it as such in the Bill.
	I recognise that all noble Lords have been constructive in this debate. I also recognise that anxieties have been expressed and that the amendments give vent to those anxieties. I shall not accept the amendments this evening and I do not want noble Lords to press them, but I agree with the Committee that clarity about the roles is extremely important. If these anxieties are expressed in the Committee, it is incumbent on the Government to take further steps to clarify the roles—particularly that of the National Statistician—within the structure as set out in the Bill. I undertake to dwell on the contributions concerning this important area and to reflect on previous amendments which have given clear verse to some of these problems. I undertake that on Report I shall attempt to satisfy noble Lords' anxieties, possibly more fully than I have been able to do this evening.

Baroness Noakes: Before the noble Lord, Lord Newby, decides what to do with his amendment, I ask the Minister whether he agrees with AmendmentNo. 47 that,
	"The board shall have responsibility to monitor and assess the performance of the National Statistician".
	In my remarks I said that that is an important element of the board's functions. How do we put that alongside Clause 28 which says that the National Statistician is the chief adviser to the board? It is difficult to see how we can put those two points together, although I strongly support the notion that we should write into the Bill the fact that the board is there to oversee, to monitor and to assess the performance of the National Statistician.

Baroness Northover: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to combat AIDS across the world and its effect on children.
	My Lords, I am very grateful to have such an array of distinguished speakers with long commitments to the fight against AIDS speaking in this short debate. It is a mark of the importance of the subject. I often think that, if HIV/AIDS were at the same level in Britain as it is in southern Africa, we would have nothing else on the agenda. In some places in southern Africa, two-thirds of the adult population are infected. A whole generation is being decimated. How can that not be seen as catastrophic?
	I want to focus on the long-term implications of HIV/AIDS and, in particular, on the impact of the epidemic on children and the future of those countries that are already badly hit by HIV/AIDS or where the full impact is fast coming down the track. As UNICEF points out, the AIDS epidemic puts children at risk physically, emotionally and economically. Children may themselves be infected with AIDS; they may live with a chronically ill parent and be required to work or to abandon their schooling while they look after that parent or earn money. Many also become orphans. There are already 12 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa alone. They may live with a grandparent, often in extreme poverty and deprivation, and be rendered even more vulnerable on that grandparent's death.
	Then there are the even wider implications of societies being undermined as large numbers in the working population die, of culture not being passed on and of working practices, such as those in agriculture, not being taught to children because their parents are sick and dying. One can draw a parallel—I have done so before, but it is worth emphasising—with the plague that struck 14th-century Britain, when enormous economic and social change followed. Some of that change was positive—it sounded the death knell for the oppressive feudal system—but villages died, people moved and rebellions occurred. The social and economic impact of AIDS cannot be overestimated. Surely it is a greater threat to peace and security than terrorism.
	There was a time when the emphasis was on prevention. It was felt that those who were affected were beyond help because of the cost of drugs and the lack of infrastructure in countries to deliver treatment. It was laudable and extremely significant that the G8 at Gleneagles made the commitment that everyone who needed it should be on treatment by 2010. That recognised the injustice of not doing everything possible to get the kind of treatment to people that in the West has meant that AIDS is something you can live with, not die of. But it also recognised the need to look after communities, and children in particular, whose lives and futures were being shattered by this disease.
	I gather that DfID is about to open a consultation on AIDS, and there is a question mark over whether children should continue to be a focus of its aid. I ask the Minister for her views on that. It seems to me that it is vital to look at their particular needs, and I hope that DfID will continue to do so.
	Children, too, are infected with HIV, of course. Globally, there are 2.3 million children with HIV, the majority of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 90 per cent of paediatric infections are the result of mother-to-child transmission. For most children infected with HIV, the chances of survival are slim. More than half of those babies will die before their second birthday, yet paediatric HIV is almost entirely preventable.
	In high-income countries, such as our own, where ARV drugs are given to women during pregnancy and labour and to infants, and where there are safe delivery and feeding practices, mother-to-child transmission rates are less than 2 per cent. There is a global commitment to offer appropriate services to80 per cent of women who need this by 2010, but in developing countries in 2005 the figure stood at just 11 per cent. What can the Minister tell us about progress on that? Will Angela Merkel, leading the G8, put effort behind this project, as is rumoured?
	When I went to South Africa last year, I was told that the cost of treating children had not been factored into the costings of providing mother-to-child treatment, yet the costs are considerable. When I visited a paediatric hospital in Mozambique, I could see not only the cost of treating the child but also the cost to the family, as parents often nurse sick children, thus being unable to work or to look after their other children. Prevention of mother-to-child transmission is known about, is extremely urgent, and must be properly funded and supported. Where a child is infected, treatment is still rarely available and is a blunt instrument, although there have been some welcome developments through the Indian generic drugs industry. But I was told by one UNICEF worker in southern Africa that drugs companies do not see investment in treatments for children as being worth while financially because they see the market as time-limited once mother-to-child prevention is widespread. What are we doing to ensure that research in this area is undertaken if the drugs companies are reluctant to undertake it?
	There are enormous challenges in this area. There is the problem of accessibility, especially in rural areas and among women. There is the need to extend testing. In Lesotho and Botswana, people have to opt out of testing rather than opt in, which is surely welcome, but easier tests are required. Social and financial support needs to be given to vulnerable children, who suffer the effect of diminishing household income. Widows' and orphans' rights to land are rarely protected. Sometimes children are taken into households and used as little more than slaves, and any property rights that they had are taken from them. Orphans are less likely to be enrolled in schools than other children and they have poor nutritional status. More orphans end up in female-headed households; some end up in child-headed households; and some, of course, end up with grandparents, who may die before the children are 18.
	It is very clear that children are likely to flourish better with relatives or in communities. There are difficulties with those situations, but they are much better than having the children live in institutions. There are many reasons for not wanting residential facilities for orphans, including high staff turnover, care deficits, lack of high standards and clearly worse physical and mental outcomes. Much more therefore needs to be done to give financial help to carers. I note that the global fund is supporting one such scheme to help grandparents in Swaziland, which is welcome.
	The provision of cash transfers to older people has a positive effect on the well-being of children. In Namibia and South Africa, many older people spend the greatest proportion of their pension on food, clothing, education and healthcare for their grandchildren. A southern African study found that receipt of pensions by older women had a significant impact on the growth of the girls whom they looked after. In Zambia, a cash transfer scheme to older people caring for orphans has resulted in better school attendance. What plans do the Government have to extend these sorts of schemes?
	We must not forget the enormous difficulty of getting help to children who fall outside these arrangements. Street children are especially vulnerable to HIV and AIDS. They live a transitory lifestyle, are unsupervised by adults and have little access to health, education or social services. Can the Minister comment on this particularly vulnerable group?
	As UNICEF observes, in recent years there has been a surge in leadership and resources in the fight against AIDS. The UK has played its part. UNICEF says:
	"This influx of funds has great potential for improving the lives of millions affected by the disease, but the impact on children has yet to receive the priority attention it deserves".
	I am therefore glad that we are having this debate tonight and that it happens to come at the beginning of an extensive consultation on the matter. I hope that the enormous implications for children of this appalling disease will be recognised and that even greater efforts will be made to improve their life chances.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is to be congratulated on again raising the urgent matter of dealing with the global scourge of AIDS. I see four main attributes of effective programmes: enabling willingness to talk about the problem; educational campaigns, particularly for young people; mechanisms for delivery of treatment; and the medicines themselves.
	I was impressed by one programme in rural Namibia, where people became too weak to farm and feed themselves. The project got communities to discuss easier farming and other ways of earning a living at the same time as dealing with AIDS. So the illness was discussed in the context of income generation, with plans to support widows and orphans built in as the issues were examined. As people began to talk, more felt able to go for testing, which helped to remove stigma. The upshot was 50 income-generating activities in operation across two regions, combined with increased capacity to reduce HIV/AIDS. This model has now been taken up for the whole of Namibia. For an outlay of just under £2 million over four years, DfID has helped to change culture, nutrition, health and economic productivity, and, most effectively, it has helped to get people to talk.
	I also heard about a television drama series for east Africa, "Makutano Junction", produced with advice from the "EastEnders" people, which reached 5 million viewers in Kenya alone and inserts into the story—rather as "The Archers" does for farming techniques—educational information about safe sex. DfID is now funding research on the impact of the programme.
	In Malawi, out of £100 million invested in the health service over five years, we have put £45 million into AIDS-related services. For this to work, however, the Government had to stop the doctors and nurses leaving and replace those dying of AIDS. So in an innovative programme, funds also go to improve pay and conditions. The number of nurses has doubled, that of doctors has tripled and 700 nurses who left the health service have now returned. The number of people tested for HIV more than doubled last year to 440,000, and the number of people on ART has increased from 4,000 in 2003 to over 80,000. Malawi's former high infection level has now stabilised at12 per cent.
	Declaring an interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK, I saw an effective UNICEF campaign in Uganda to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, which causes 90 per cent of child infection. The campaign minimises stigma by testing mothers as part of routine antenatal care and making treatment available during the birth. The cost of medicine was a huge barrier. DfID therefore backed a new international drug-purchasing facility, UNITAID, to help to lower drug prices through predictable and long-term funding. This has contributed to over $61 million for paediatric anti-retroviral therapy, previously scarce because research went on the needs of the developed world and adults at risk.
	Are these strategies making a difference? There are some striking improvements. However, children still represent 15 per cent of AIDS deaths worldwide, while only 6 per cent of those get treated. So we must keep the focus. We must be sure what the decisive factors are. Can my noble friend tell us how work on evaluating impact is developing?

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have visited Angola twice: first with the assistance of UNICEF and then with the assistance of Tearfund and Save the Children.
	Angola has the lowest prevalence of HIV/AIDS of any sub-Saharan nation. I would like now to consider how that state might be maintained and Angolan children protected from infection, from becoming orphaned and from losing their teachers, doctors and nurses to HIV/AIDS. Angola has experienced 40 years of an armed conflict, including a 24-year civil war that was resolved in 2002. It has great wealth, yet needs assistance now as it recovers from its long trauma. It is the conflict that has broken communications within and without the country and has stemmed the spread of HIV/AIDS. But as displaced people return from without and within, the risk of the spread of HIV rises steeply. While statistics are somewhat unreliable, it appears that the rate of HIV in the capital, Luanda, is about 3.8 per cent, while in the region bordering Namibia it stands at about 9 per cent.
	The risk of spread is great. Children represent around 60 per cent of the population in Angola. The country has the second highest fertility rate in the world. When surveyed, only 55 per cent of men admitted to using condoms with their last casual partners. The 40 years of conflict have damaged families and communities, leaving many young men without experience of stable family relationships. Lack of female autonomy and low levels of education are also significant risk factors. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that every opportunity is taken to recognise the Angolan Government's positive efforts in this area and that encouragement is given to the president and senior political leadership to dispel any stigma attached to HIV/AIDS status.
	The Department for International Development has most helpfully provided UNICEF with £3 million of unearmarked money for work in Angola. This is making a huge difference, I am told, mostly spent at local community level in training for staff in health centres and in support for mothers. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, this is not high-level training and they are not going to be poached. Building HIV/AIDS awareness must be an important means of protecting children from its fallout. The national football team played its part during the World Cup. Recently, all schools took part in a national competition to compose and perform an AIDS song, and within schools there are AIDS clubs.
	The quantity of provision has rapidly increased. For instance, antenatal testing was available only in two areas in 2004; in 2007 it is available in 27. Now there needs to be greater emphasis in developing the quality of provision, and here attention to capacity-building by the Department for International Development could make a significant improvement in children's lives. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, referred to the importance of preventing mother-to-child transmission. It is a complex task and people need to be trained to do the job effectively. We havethe quantity of care and now we need the quality. What role might the Minister's department play in developing capacity for these interventions with parents and children?
	To conclude, HIV/AIDS might be the main barrier to Angola's successful recovery from the trauma of conflict. UNICEF certainly holds it to be so. DfID already plays an important role in capacity development. If the Minister's department can build on this, we will play an important part in preventing at least one sub-Saharan state from succumbing to the full scourge of HIV/AIDS and thus protect many children from the experience of being orphaned.
	Are Her Majesty's Government carefully monitoring the situation in Angola with regard to AIDS? I look forward to the Minister's response and understand that she may prefer to write to me in answer to those questions.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, last week we briefly debated Zimbabwe, where progressive droughts and food shortages, combined with political failure, have led to destitution, hunger and the vulnerability of ill health. These are the conditions in which the body's resistance breaks down. Zimbabwe's HIV/AIDS epidemic, although prevalence may have fallen below 20 per cent, remains one of the worst in the world. Some 3,500 die every week from HIV and the vast majority live beyond proper care and treatment. There are1.3 million orphans and an estimated 350,000 child-headed households due to HIV. DfID has quite rightly made AIDS a top priority and we are told that it is having a significant impact. I want to ask our Government whether their strategy favours the national and international at the expense of the local. Why,for example, are they spending as much as £20 million on one vast US-based programme in Zimbabwe, Population Services International, which already has USAID funding?
	Here I declare an interest as a former board member of Christian Aid and a patron of Trust for Africa's Orphans. I saw the holistic work of both organisations in Uganda and was especially impressed by the community's participation in each project. One partner organisation of Christian Aid, while active in AIDS prevention, also excelled in community education and awareness-building, ensuring that there was not stigma attached to its work. While it was church-based, there was no question of evangelical work and it was obviously highly successful, as many church projects have been in Uganda, spreading the ABC messages and combating the HIV virus. The Trust for Africa's Orphans programme, founded by Mrs Janet Museveni, helps AIDS orphans and is supported by a range of agricultural projects: goat and pig farming, bee-keeping, savings and credit schemes, the provision of seeds,; and other forms of poverty alleviation.
	The message for me was that the best healthcare goes hand in hand with community development and the participation of local people. Dependence on traditional healing and cultural and sexual patterns that encourage epidemics such as AIDS will change only when people understand and take part in that change. All this is in contrast to the work of many larger aid agencies in Africa, including some UN agencies and global public/private partnerships. I am not saying that larger organisations are incapable of a holistic approach, but they often assume that they can impose external solutions in spite of the cultural differences between them and the local communities. These agencies, most of which we are supporting as taxpayers, spend considerable sums of money, much of which goes to their own overblown organisations and lifestyles. It is an example of corruption that can be very well disguised by moral superiority.
	I have questions, of which I have already advised the Minister, broadly on whether DfID will reconsider its approach to smaller community-based NGOs that are tackling HIV/AIDS in Africa. For example, I wonder whether DfID is biased towards national strategies in the name of better governance. Zimbabwe is obviously one country where this doctrine does not apply, but we still have to work with its Government. Generally in Africa, DfID has tried to provide budget support to ministries of health, thereby perhaps neglecting some very good small NGO programmes. I suggest that when it comes to defeating the AIDS virus, good practice makes a lot more sense than good governance.
	At the same time, I recognise that countries such as Uganda and Mozambique have made huge strides in eradicating poverty and ill health. Perhaps DfID is too concerned with good impact assessments and statistics. Would it like to see more data collection to ensure faster progress towards the MDGs? Where Governments are corrupt and ineffective, what is DfID doing to shift its emphasis away from Governments and towards the community? Christian Aid is supporting some 250 such partners working on HIV/AIDS worldwide. Save the Children has had great success in Malawi and is extending its work across Africa and the Caribbean, benefiting hundreds of thousands of children. In my experience, smaller organisations pay at least as much attention to data collection—sometimes their funding depends upon it—and they are ready to share research with UNAIDS and the national networks. Being more familiar with the areas and the people where they work, with few exceptions, they provide much better value for money and still achieve the necessary results.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this short debate, and thank my noble friend Lady Northover for keeping our minds concentrated on this problem consistently and in depth over many months.
	I was told a true story about a pastor in the Kampala region of Uganda. He was taken to a village about 100 kilometres north of Kampala and, after his service, he was taken to see an old lady of 79. She had given birth to seven children. Six had already died of AIDS and the seventh was dying of AIDS. She said that she had sole care of 23 grandchildren. She was trying to care for them all by herself out of her own resources. She said, "I am an old woman, and I can no longer dig. One day soon I too will die, and then who will look after my grandchildren?". That story can be repeated so many times. It is not only the disease itself, but the stress and anxiety for those who are in that situation. We hear of children who, when their parents die, lose not only their carers but also the homes in which they were brought up. Children are abandoned on the streets; babies have been saved from rubbish tips in parts of Africa. We all know that the situation for millions of children, women and men is a nightmare. Imagine the lost potential of the people who could be contributing to the future of their countries in that part of the world.
	We must appreciate the vast amount of work that has been carried out by voluntary organisations that care and rescue. I know of the Christian Watoto Child Care Ministries. North of Kampala, they have now set up a village that already cares for 1,500 orphans of AIDS victims and about 17 of them are already going to university. It is a tremendous success story. There is already a new babies' home. They have undertaken water projects. The work is carried out by volunteers. They have been visited by 60 short-term teams to assist with building and development. People have been moved by compassion to do something themselves. We must appreciate the work of the voluntary organisations. It does not cost us a penny; it is just encouraging.
	The Government propose to bring forth some immigration regulations. I ask that there will be no restrictions to impede the work and the visits of people from here to the needy areas of Africa and other parts of the world, and that nothing will stop people from those places coming here to take advantage of any education or training opportunities we might be able to offer them. I ask the Minister for an assurance that any new immigration regulations will not include that task. These are simple requests, but they mean that we would be seen as a caring and compassionate country.
	However, that is only treating the victims of AIDS and not attacking the disease itself. I am told, and this is where I begin to fantasise, that £12 billion would be a massive step forward to eradicate AIDS in the whole of the world—not £12 billion from ourselves, but globally. Is that not possible? It is just the amount that we are possibly going to spend on the Olympic Games—although I am a great supporter of the Olympic Games of 2012.
	Finally, the World Health Organisation was able to announce some years ago that smallpox had been eradicated. Could we not now, as the United Kingdom, make it our main aim to be able to say that AIDS also, if it has not been eradicated, is at least only a fraction of what it is at present?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for tabling this important Question. All the speakers today have made clear that there are no illusions about the severity of the AIDS crisis that affects so many children across the world.
	Unfortunately, we have seen over the last few decades that knowledge of this crisis does not necessarily translate into effective action. Without constant efforts to keep the issue in the public eye, it is far too easy to continue with projects of uncertain efficacy merely because of inertia. We need, instead, to re-evaluate continually our approaches in the light of new evidence, new technology and new research.
	Currently, the huge majority of retroviral research and provision of medication is based on adult patients; current donor methods and priorities are completely failing to help children in developing countries.
	In researching this topic, I came upon the terrifying statistic that there are more AIDS orphans in Africa than there are children in the United Kingdom. Yet only one in 20 children in a developing country is receiving treatment. When 90 per cent of these children have been infected because of a lack of treatment to their infected pregnant mothers, it is clear their health must be moved further up the public agenda, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fowler.
	As other speakers have made clear, recent reports have highlighted funding targets and, while theyhave been effective at improving donor countries' commitment, they are not the measure we need to use. My honourable friend Andrew Mitchell has so rightly stressed that the emphasis should be on the number of patients treated, not the number of pounds donated.
	With these new targets, I hope it is possible that significant attention will finally be given to reducing the cost of these treatments.
	Patent law of course needs to be studied, but the considerable reduction in the cost of patented treatments, from $12,000 to $700 a year, due to certain pressures shows what advances can be made in this area. What are the Government doing to increase the supply of cheap, legal and reliable drugs to developing countries? The Government could look carefully at the example of Dr Yusef Hamied, nominated for the Nobel prize for peace for his efforts to eradicate AIDS. His Indian pharmaceutical company, Cipla, has been a major incentive for the recent fall in the price of AIDS medication by producing generic drugs that were legal under Indian patent laws, and sell far cheaper in developing countries. He said:
	"What's the use of developing life-saving medicines, if you can't make them affordable to the patient?".
	Obviously, care must be taken to respect patent laws in the countries where the drugs are produced and delivered; but can the Government explain what they are doing to enforce the WTO rules which allow generic medicines to be used in a health crisis? The Government's target for universal access to anti-retroviral treatment by 2010 is extremely ambitious, but we are unfortunately not on track to meet it.
	I hope the Minister will reassure us that the Government are continuing to look at new ways of targeting aid effectively and making sure that much needed money is not being wasted.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on securing this timely debate and on re-focusing our minds. It is such an important global issue, and we have had a truly well informed exchange of views. A mixture of despair and hope has been expressed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who has such a long and proud record in this area, I wish that more time could be spent in this House on this issue.
	The AIDS epidemic is having a devastating effect on communities throughout the world. UNAIDS's latest estimates show that 40 million people worldwide were living with HIV or AIDS at the end of 2006, and that 4 million people became newly infected with HIV—40 per cent of them young people between the ages of 15 and 24. The challenge is enormous, and this Government are responding, although we have no illusions about the efforts that need to be made. Strengthening health services is, of course, the most sustainable way to improve poor people's health and to address the health aspects of HIV and AIDS, including for children.
	Developing countries need to demonstrate their commitment by increasing their own health budgets and investing in the health of their own citizens. The UK has been working actively with Governments and the international community to support such a scaling-up. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, we are helping Malawi with a £100 million emergency programme over six years, part of which aims to double the number of nurses and triple the number of doctors, and to retain them through better pay and conditions, with a salary increase of 50 per cent. Early signs suggest that this support is helping to stop the outflow of health workers, and recruitment has dramatically improved.
	We also provided Malawi with £20 million in 2005-06 to fund AIDS-specific projects. In response to my noble friend Lord Rea, our investment in Malawi is clearly one answer to doctors and nurses coming out of the country when they are needed in that country, but we also implement a code of conduct on recruiting health workers from other countries to work in the NHS. We are currently in the early stages of designing a new long-term health programme for Sierra Leone that is similar to the one that we have in Malawi.
	We have quite rightly heard this evening that children are among those most affected by the epidemic, and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that young children will continue to be the main focus of our new strategy. In Africa, 15 million children have lost at least one parent to AIDS. Without the guidance and protection of their primary care givers, these children are particularly at risk of abuse, exploitation, trafficking, discrimination and other abuses. Other members of the community and the family, especially grandparents, and grandmothers in particular, are hugely overburdened. The Government are working to help to ensure that support is provided where it is most urgently needed. That is why Taking Action, the UK Strategy for Tackling HIV and AIDS in the Developing World, gives a high priority to the rights of children and orphans. Between 2005 and 2008, DfID will spend £150 million, from an overall commitment of £1.5 billion, to meet the needs of children affected by AIDS, including street children. Expenditure on street children will be part of this commitment. The UK also supports programmes and organisations that work directly with street children. In Burma, for example, DfID is contributing £450,000 to the street and working children programme. One element of the programme is HIV and AIDS education.
	Of course, additional funding is vital for a sustained response to HIV and AIDS, but political leadership is also crucial, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right honourable friend Hilary Benn and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development for the leadership that they have shown in tackling these epidemics. In February 2006, the UK hosted, with UNICEF, the Global Partners Forum on Children Affected by HIV and AIDS to identify concrete actions to improve access to the prevention, treatment, care and support for children affected by HIV and AIDS. I spoke at this conference, and I assure noble Lords that it was truly action-focused. The forum made several recommendations, including long-term financial support for community action, integrated HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment services for children, the elimination of school fees and regular, predictable cash transfers to reduce the impact of AIDS. These recommendations fed into the UN General Assembly High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS in June 2006 and were reflected in the General Assembly's political declaration for achieving universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support by 2010.
	We are pushing for increased action through the inter-agency task team on children and AIDS which was set up to accelerate co-ordinated action and build consensus on priority topics. Indeed, today in Washington DfID officials are participating in a meeting of the inter-agency task team to scale up the response for children affected by AIDS. The UK was also the second largest donor to UNICEF in 2006, providing a total of £105 million. This helped to fund child protection programmes that ensure that children and adolescents vulnerable to HIV infection can access and use prevention information, skills and services. I note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that perhaps we should be talking about outcomes and the number of people we help rather than the number of pounds we spend. However, there is a direct correlation between the number of pounds spent and the people affected in a good way. DfID is also working with UNICEF to support national action plans for children affected by AIDS in six countries in Africa, and we are providing an additional £5 million specifically for advocacy and capacity development behind the objectives of the campaign, Unite for Children, Unite against AIDS.
	Many noble Lords rightly raised the matter of mother-to-child transmission. DfID is increasing its focus on the prevention of mother-to-child transmission and is working hard to make paediatric treatment more available. The UK was a founder member of UNITAID, the new drugs purchase facility established in 2006. Last year we pledged €20 million, a figure that will rise to €60 million annually by 2010 if performance justifies it as part of a 20-year commitment. One of UNITAID's first decisions was to approve a $61 million investment in anti-retroviral treatment for up to 100,000 children in 2007. I believe that these strategies are making a difference.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked what the Government thought Chancellor Merkel would do in the G8 under the German presidency this year. There is a focus on the feminisation of the AIDS epidemic. This provides an opportunity to explore how the global community, and the G8 in particular, can place more emphasis on meeting the needs of women and girls, including mother-to-child transmission. The UK is actively engaging in these discussions, which will lead up to the G8 summit in Germany.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised various issues on medicines. The UK Government are working the Medicines Transparency Alliance with country, multilateral and civil society partners to build support for transparency in medicines procurement and supply and to help drive out corruption, excessive mark-ups and inefficiencies. Hilary Benn opened the first stakeholder meeting in London on 18 April.
	DfID's bilateral programmes also directly support children affected by AIDS. For example, in Kenya we are working with the ministry of health to provide home-based care to over 60,000 people living with AIDS and over 100,000 orphans and vulnerable children. In Zimbabwe, DfID is providing £25 million to non-governmental organisations and their community partners to protect orphans and other vulnerable children from all forms of abuse and increase their access to basic social services. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the dreadful situation in Zimbabwe and asked if our national strategy is being exercised at the expense of local strategies. DfID's approach to AIDS employs a range of instruments. Poverty reduction budget support is one of these, but the most recent assessments suggest that it is only a small proportion of total AIDS spending. It is important that funds get through to the organisations that provide direct support to those living with and affected by AIDS. Community-based organisations clearly have a very important role and an important contribution to make.
	A key modality of DfID support to major NGO activities in the area of AIDS is through strategic partnership programme agreements. Under those agreements, partners such as Christian Aid and Oxfam work through local organisations at the country level. DfID also supports community-based organisations through its bilateral programmes, often through multi-donor pooled funds behind national AIDS councils or challenge funds, to develop good practice and encourage voice and accountability, as in the case of Zimbabwe.
	The UK is tackling the wider issues that make girls and young women particularly vulnerable to HIVby supporting, in countries from Bangladesh to Zimbabwe and Uganda to Bolivia, programmes that empower girls and young women to control key aspects of their lives, including sexual matters. As noble Lords will know, the UK will spend £8.5 billion in support of education over the next 10 years, and education, especially for girls, is like a social vaccine against HIV.
	DfID supports the work of the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS, and I pay tribute to that excellent organisation for its work in empowering and maintaining contact with women living with HIV all over the world, sharing lifesaving information about their health and rights and influencing policies and attitude. Its work is especially important in countering the dreadful stigma mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, which prevents people getting the support and the help that they need. Many noble Lords have spoken of the need for pregnant mothers to be tested for HIV and AIDS, but too many pregnant mothers do not want to be tested for HIV because of the stigma that a positive result could bring, not to mention something like domestic violence. These are difficult issues that have to be addressed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, spoke of the concerns of grandparents. Predictable, regular cash transfers to households looking after children affected by AIDS can be a simple and cost-effective way to ensure that children stay in a family environment and get the protection, nutrition, education and healthcare that they need. DfID is supporting that approach in seven African countries, and we hope we will build on that.
	My noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, rightly mentioned the importance of research and the need to evaluate the impact. The UK has been active in developing innovative financing to encourage R&D investment into treatments and vaccines for diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Among others, DfID provides financial support for research to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Joint Learning Initiative on children and HIV/AIDS, whose goal is to protect and fulfil the rights of children affected by HIV/AIDS by mobilising the scientific evidence base and producing actionable recommendations for policy and practice. Like the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations that are working with people with AIDS, especially with children with HIV and AIDS. In response to his question, I do not expect that the Home Office points system for immigration will affect people coming to this country for training, but if I am wrong I will certainly write to noble Lords. That is something I must explore further.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke about Angola. Yes, we recognise the activities to support HIV and AIDS awareness in that country. DfID's main support for HIV/AIDS in Angola is provided through two grants to UNICEF. One is a general grant of£3.5 million over two years, and the other is a regional grant of £18 million for UNICEF's work on HIV/AIDS with orphans and vulnerable children in southern Africa, from which Angola stands to benefit. In response to the noble Earl's questions about monitoring, several agencies are monitoring the HIV situation in Angola, including the WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
	DfID is fully committed to leading international efforts to tackle HIV and AIDS. Much work is under way, but of course I understand and agree that more needs to be done to ensure that children have accessto HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. International leadership is crucial for that. We look to the 2007 G8 summit, with its focus on Africa and strengthening health systems, to signal the international community's renewed commitment to combating AIDS and to achieving the target of universal access to AIDS services by 2010. Working together, we must turn that commitment into action so that we can combat AIDS and its profound effect across the world, especially on our children.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard, AmendmentNo. 33 would remove the Minister for the Civil Service's role in approving overall numbers of board employees. This provision was debated in the Public Bill Committee in the other place. However, for the benefit of noble Lords, we are happy to discuss it here, too.
	This provision of the Bill, requiring the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the numbers and terms and conditions of employment of staff, is a fairly standard provision in legislation creating non-ministerial departments where staff will be civil servants. The purpose of the clause is to preserve cohesion across the Civil Service, subject to local delegations. A similar clause can be found, for example, in the Food Standards Act 1999 in respect of the Food Standards Agency. It does not mean that individual appointments will have to be brought before the Minister for the Civil Service, but rather that the Minister for the Civil Service will set general limits on numbers and guidance on terms and conditions of service.
	Before concluding my brief remarks on this group of amendments, I take this opportunity to flag up the fact that we may have to amend Clause 5 on Report. As it stands, Clause 5(7) provides for all employees of the board to be civil servants, whereas it has recently come to light that ONS employs some field work staff, who undertake surveys and other similar tasks, who are Crown servants. Work is ongoing, but our intention when the Bill was drafted was to ensure continuity of conditions for those staff currently employed by ONS. I will be sure to update noble Lords on our intentions in this regard as soon as I am able.

Baroness Noakes: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 114. These amendments concern trust in statistics. At Second Reading, several noble Lords referred to the quite awful figures from the 2005 survey organised by the ONS. Only 37 per cent of people believe that statistics are generally accurate and only 17 per cent believe that they are produced without political interference. In 2005, the Statistics Commission carried out research into attitudes to official statistics. It reported:
	"There is a strong feeling... that action needs to be taken to increase trust in, and the credibility of, official statistics".
	The Royal Statistical Society, in its comments on the Bill circulated to noble Lords, stated that,
	"for several decades now, a lack of trust due to a wide perception of political interference has devalued and undermined official statistics to an extent not seen elsewhere. We believe that trust in official statistics and public confidence in the system that produces them is fundamental to the Government's objectives for the Bill and it should be judged by whether it addresses these".
	As I made clear at Second Reading and in my opening remarks on Amendment No. 1, we shall judge the Bill by whether it is the best way in which to achieve the highest degree of public trust in statistics. I am not sure that the Government have the same approach. I read very carefully the remarks of the Minister at Second Reading, both his opening remarks and winding-up speech, and he never once used the word "trust". It was as if his briefing notes from the Bill team had marked in capital letters in the file, "DO NOT USE THE WORD TRUST". In the final paragraph of the Minister's opening speech at Second Reading, he said:
	"The Bill is a step forward in what will be a major and evolving programme of reform. It holds out the possibility of substantially improving the quality of and confidence in government statistics".—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1449.]
	I put it to the Committee that if that represents the Government's ambition for this Bill, it is not good enough. Leaving aside the vacuous and vague reference to,
	"a major and evolving programme of reform",
	the Minister talked about the possibility of improvement—not the absolute aim and commitment to achieving high levels of equality and confidence. Of course, he avoided the "t" word. I have heard the Minister use the word "trust" today, which may be an encouraging sign, but when he comes to reply to the amendment will he say whether the Government genuinely have public trust at the heart of their aspirations for the new statistical arrangements, or is this word no longer allowed to be used in connection with them?
	Whatever the Government think, we believe that the aim of gaining high levels of public trust should be at the heart of the Bill. Amendment No. 35 would amend Clause 7, which sets out the objective of the board, which is currently expressed as,
	"promoting and safeguarding the production ... of official statistics that serve the public good".
	We have no problem with that. Indeed, the reference to public good arose out of an amendment tabled by my honourable friend Mr Michael Fallon in Committee in another place. However, we believe that it should go further and say that the objective is also,
	"ensuring high levels of public trust in official statistics".
	I am sure that there is an argument that official statistics do not serve the public good if they do not carry high levels of public trust, but the public good can be seen in a narrower sense of serving those charged with making public policy. The issue of trust is a wider one of gaining the support of the public for the statistics which will underpin the Government's policies and hence gaining the support of the public for the policies themselves.
	Amendment No. 48 positively requires the board to carry out research to determine the level of public trust. I am sure that I was not alone in being shocked at the findings of the ONS's research. We need that research undertaken regularly and published, as the amendment also requires, so that we always keep in public view the issue of trust. We all, I am sure, earnestly hope that the headlines will one day be so boring that the newspapers will shun them, and"99 per cent believe that official statistics are totally trustworthy" will get no space in the media. But we are a long way from that, which is why we should keep the research going.
	Lastly, Amendment No. 114 amends Clause 25 of the Bill so that the board's annual report must deal with the issue of public trust. We should never be shy of stating the obvious in legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I should begin with an apology if I did not mention trust in the Second Reading debate. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said many times in the other place that the Government share what is no doubt the ultimate goal of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness—that these reforms and this legislation will help to rebuild and bring greater public trust and confidence in official statistics. The problem with the amendments, as the noble Baroness will recognise, is that they translate an ambition that we all share and which I might add is important to the Bill into a statutory responsibility on the board for delivering high levels of public trust in its official statistics. We certainly look forward to the board successfully delivering exactly that but it is a different matter saying that it is accountable in statute for so doing.
	Amendment No. 35 places an obligation on the board to ensure high levels of public trust in official statistics. That is what we all hope for, but it may be an unreasonable obligation to place on it. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, who I am glad to see in his place, said at Second Reading:
	"Trust, however, is a complex matter. For one thing, trust in statistics is part and parcel of trust in government themselves, and, indeed, in politicians in general".—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1454.]
	That is a broad enough canvas to enable us to recognise that it may not be entirely fair to put such an obligation on the board by statute.
	How statistics are used and presented to people, especially via the media, plays a very important role in whether people do or do not trust official figures. Levels of numeracy and people's understanding of figures and statistics are also likely to impact on their scepticism or otherwise of official statistics. People's individual experiences of issues presented at an aggregate level by statistics also plays a part in their propensity to trust those statistics. We are all aware of the fact that these weaknesses can apply to ourselves. It is often said that politicians never take statistics more seriously than when they appear in opinion polls. However limited such snapshots may be, they become the stuff of media headlines. As we all know to our advantage or cost, politicians view them as conditioning elements in public behaviour. I again apologise for not emphasising the importance oftrust in official statistics. However, it cannot be made a statutory obligation on the board to require itto achieve what it has only a role in helping toachieve.
	The amendment, which would require the board to carry out research on public trust in official statistics and publish the results of that work, reflects the fact that the ONS and the Statistics Commission do such work. They commission and undertake research in this important area. It is something the board is already empowered to do and we expect that it may well do it. However, the Government are reluctant to prescribe it in the Bill. It is better to leave it tothe independent board to determine what activitiesit will undertake at different times to deliver itscore objective; namely, to promote and safeguard the quality and comprehensiveness of official statistics which serve the public good. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
	Amendment No. 114 would provide an additional requirement regarding what issues must be covered in the board's annual report—in this case, the issue of public trust in statistics. As I said, we do not think it necessary to over-prescribe how the board goes about its business. I do not think that it is helpful to statein detail what it must cover in its annual report. Clause 25 already requires the board's annual report to cover what it has done and found each year. Within that remit surely we should allow the board to use its own judgment to ensure that the most pertinent and relevant information about its activities is reported each year. We share the objectives of the noble Baroness, but we do not need to be prescriptive in statute for the board to fulfil those highly desirable objectives.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, these amendments are about augmenting the board's objective in Clause 7 and monitoring function in Clause 8, and deal with some issues raised by the previous amendments. We can understand some of the thinking behind these amendments, but they do not ultimately improve the objective or are really necessary.
	As my noble friend said on the previous amendments, the objective as it stands is absolutely right. It is the cornerstone of the Bill and is appropriately succinct, broad and high level. It is designed to provide a clear statement of overall purpose for the board, stating that the board is to promote and safeguard the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of official statistics that serve the public good. It is from this core objective that the board's functions, which will allow it to deliver on the objective, flow.
	Amendment No. 38 would augment the board's objective to state that the public good is served by statistics that meet,
	"the information needs of users of statistics".
	In drafting the objective, particularly references to how statistics serve the public good, the Government knew that we could not exhaustively list all the ways in which statistics contribute. With that in mind, we included a brief statement of some of the key ways in which statistics serve the public good. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, added to this list with some interesting suggestions that we will consider before Report.
	The board's objective also states that it is to promote and safeguard the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of official statistics, including the accessibility, relevance and coherence of statistics. In fulfilling its objective and ensuring the relevance, coherence and comprehensiveness of statistics that serve the public good, the board will undoubtedly need to establish mechanisms to establish user interests and set about addressing them.
	We believe that the objective as drafted is clear and covers the right ground and we do not feel that the suggested amendment is necessary. Amendment 43 would require the board, in its duties at Clause 8, to keep under review whether official statistics meet users' information needs. We have touched on some of these issues already in discussing the amendments that sought to add the requirement that the National Statistician should co-ordinate planning across statistics. Again, we do not think that such additions are necessary. To fulfil its objective, the board is already required to monitor, and can report on, the quality, including coherence, relevance and comprehensiveness, of official statistics. As part of that, it will no doubt engage extensively with a wide range of statistical users to establish and report on whether the suite of official statistics meets their needs. Again, I do not think that it is helpful to add additional requirements of the board, given this general policy statement.
	I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied with the answers that I have given and invite her to withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Noakes: I am grateful that the Minister will write because people who we have been in touch with me are particularly concerned about that. I see that those in the Box are smiling. They will do the letter for the Minister; it is not a problem.
	The Minister's response was entirely predictable. Anything that these Benches suggest to improve the Bill and to keep the needs of persons such as users properly in view are regarded not as an improvement but as an unnecessary elaboration, or possibly even unhelpful. I will consider carefully what the Minister said. I look forward to the letter that his officials will draft for him on social capital and I will decide at that stage whether or not I shall return to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: These amendments change the board's objective. We have already discussed a number of amendments on this topic. Although I understand the thinking behind them, our view is that they do not ultimately improve the objective. We feel that they are unnecessary.
	The objective is the cornerstone of the Bill. We believe it to be clear in stating that the board is to promote and safeguard the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of statistics that is serving the public good. It is from that core objective that the board's functions which will allow it to deliver onthe objective flow. Amendment No. 39 would add into the objective a requirement that the board ensures not only the accessibility of statistics, but appropriate data protection safeguards in respect of the raw data from which official statistics are derived.
	As I have explained in earlier discussions, the Government believe the objective is right as it is designed to provide a clear statement of the overall purpose of the board. It is the subsequent clauses that provide the details about the duties and powers the board has which it will deliver on that objective. These include the necessary restrictions on disclosure of personal information set out in Clause 36.
	As well as the specific restriction on disclosure of personal information in Clause 36, the board will more generally be required to comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, in so far as the information is personal data, the Data Protection Act 1998. The Government take the view that it is not necessary to specify in each Bill past obligations which apply by virtue of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, the ONS currently has a wide range of security protocols and mechanisms in place to protect raw statistical data. We would fully expect that the board, and through it the executive office of the board as established by the National Statistician, would have similar operation controls in place, given that the board will need public confidence in its handling of data for its role to be fulfilled.

On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 39) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 40.

Lord Howard of Rising: At Second Reading, the Minister spoke briefly about the nature of our statistical production, calling it,
	"long established and strongly supported".—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1443.]
	That is certainly true, and by producing statistics at the local level, the accuracy and relevance of the data are improved, and local users can be responded to more flexibly. However,—this concentration on local statistics does not, and should not, limit the production of statistics to a standard and consistency that will enable them to make a positive and useful contribution at a national level.
	The response of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to similar amendments in another place was not very reassuring. In the event that the board concludes that a department is producing statistics inconsistently, he offered the following possibilities:
	"The board can report its concerns to the relevant Ministers, make its views public, and report concerns to Parliament and the devolved legislatures in either its annual or a special report".—[Official Report, Commons, Statistics and Registration Service Bill Committee, 18/1/07; col. 114.]
	None of these possibilities is particularly impressive, and the department can ignore them all if the inconsistency is sufficiently to its advantage. This problem is, of course, related to the Bill's failure to give the board real powers to enforce its code of practice. As the Financial Secretary rightly noted in the debate that I mentioned, the board can put consistency in its code of practice, but this is in essence unenforceable, and we will debate this issue specifically when we discuss a later group of amendments. The amendment would at least ensure that the Statistics Board could isolate inconsistent amendments, and it would be part of its remit to ensure that local statistics are adequate for use in the national context. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was almost right when he anticipated that I would say that the Bill already strikes the right balance and therefore Amendment No. 41 would not be acceptable, but I am going to be slightly more assertive in my criticism of Amendment No. 153. So at least that will strike a fresh note, if only one of discord on which to conclude our debates today.
	Amendment No. 41 seeks to require the board to monitor,
	"the consistency of official statistics across government departments and across the United Kingdom".
	The Government recognise that consistent UK-wide statistics are beneficial and often desirable. Such consistency means that statistics about the devolved countries can be combined, allowing figures to be produced for the whole of the United Kingdom and enabling the situation in the different administrations to be properly compared. I should note howpleased the Government are that the devolved administrations have all decided to join in with the new arrangements.
	However, there is bound to be some divergence between the different parts of the UK given the different political, legal and administrative systems and policies across the four nations, many of which pre-date the development of devolution. This means that it may not always be appropriate or desirable for statistics to be consistent. If any inconsistency has a material effect on the quality of statistics being produced, it will be a matter to be taken into account in the assessment of national statistics or as part of the board's duty to monitor official statistics as already set out in Clause 8.
	The problem with Amendment No. 153, and I respect the support of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, for it, is that it would revert to old ways. It places this responsibility on the National Statistician when like a golden thread through all our debates today it will be clear that the Government have sustained their argument that it is the board's responsibility in these terms, and to whom the National Statistician works. The board will be independent and it is important that it should be allowed to develop its own approach to these issues. It does not need specific mechanisms laid down in legislation. However, what is most important about Amendment No. 153 is that it address issues not to the board but to the National Statistician. The Government sustain their position that the board must have statutory responsibility for these matters. That is why I cannot accept either of the amendments. I am sorry to end on a note of disagreement on what has been a constructive day.